# It could never happen here, could it?-Canada a Target?



## bossi

Canadians could be next targets, Australia warns
The West under attack: Islamic terrorists pervert Islam, Minister says
   
Sheldon Alberts, Deputy Ottawa Bureau Chief   
National Post 
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
   
OTTAWA - Australia's Foreign Minister yesterday warned Canadians they are potential targets of Islamic terrorists and are wrong to believe radical groups such as al-Qaeda are only interested in mounting attacks against the United States.

The bombing of a popular nightclub in Bali, which killed nearly 100 Australians and at least one Canadian on Oct. 12, was a deadly reminder that other Western nations are just as susceptible to militants motivated to kill by a "perversion of Islam," said Alexander Downer.

"I think both Canadians and Australians have to understand that a lot of these terrorist operations are directed, not just against the United States, but against what we might broadly describe, particularly Canada and Australia, as our civilization," Mr. Downer said following private meetings in Ottawa with Bill Graham, Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister.

"Whether you are a Canadian or whether you are an Australian or whether you are an American, you are part of the so-called West and there are risks that these people will use us as targets."

A radical Islamic group called Jemaah Islamiyah, which has ties to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, is believed to be responsible for the Bali attack on a club patronized largely by Western tourists. One Canadian has been confirmed dead in the attack and another is believed to have died.

More than 90 Australians were believed killed or missing in the Bali explosion.

Mr. Downer said some Australians believed prior to the attack that they were immune from terrorism. Polls suggest as many as 75% of Canadians also believe Canada is not a target.

"I think Australians who said that --and it's true there were some -- and Canadians who say that, are wrong," said Mr. Downer.

The Bali bombers and their al-Qaeda allies "are people who are motivated by their subversion of Islam, their perversion of Islam, their perversion of Islamic beliefs, which they have reinterpreted into an extremist doctrine," said Mr. Downer.

"What they want to do is drive so-called Western influence out of the Islamic world and try to establish sharia, or fundamentalist, Taliban-style states or transnational organizations, particularly in the Arabian peninsula or southeast Asia and Islamic southeast Asia."

Jemaah Islamiyah's goal is to build a pan-Islamic state across Southeast Asia. It was placed on a United Nations list of terrorist groups last Friday after a campaign led by Australia and supported by Canada.

Immediately after the Bali bombing, there was speculation Australians were targeted because of the country's co-operation with the United States in the war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Australian contributed special forces troops to the war.

But the Commonwealth nation's involvement in peacekeeping in East Timor has also been cited as a possible reason the country's citizens were targeted.

In a videotape broadcast last weekend by the British Broadcasting Corp., Osama bin Laden singled out Australia as an enemy because it helped East Timor win independence from Indonesia by leading an international peacekeeping mission in 1999.

The message from bin Laden was apparently taped last November.

Canada also contributed 650 troops to the East Timor peacekeeping force.

Concern that Islamic terrorist groups are broadening the scope of their attacks to include other Western democracies appears to be taking hold in Ottawa.

Last week, John McCallum, the Defence Minister, said the Bali bombing was proof that the terrorist threat extends well beyond the U.S. He argued Canada's military needs increased funding to help prevent similar attacks here.

Mr. Downer and Mr. Graham discussed ways to Canada and Australia could co-operate to fight terrorism by increasing communication between their respective intelligence agencies and police forces.

"We are determined as countries to co-operate, both with one another, but also to put into place the international framework necessary to deal with the threat of terrorism -- and it can only be done through international co-operation," said Mr. Graham. "We are now seeing the coming together, a co-operation amongst police force and other agencies, a genuine effort to make sure we share information."

salberts@nationalpost.com

It Could Never Happen Here, Could It? (a short story)


----------



## ThatsLife

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/sto ry/CTVNews/1126361736615_12?hub=topstories


I've been writing articles in school and articles on online communities about Canada being on the hitlist of terrorists along with the last country, Italy.

I think Canadian citizens (aside from those in the forces) are EXTREMELY ignorant and too liberal when it comes to the defence of Canada. I've been getting responses from unpubecent teens, "ur sooo stewpid! Canada iz not going 2 be attaked yew ideeiot," or my person favourite when it comes to encouraging people to join up and do something about our militarys current state and make it better...these are some of the responses i've got:

- "lolzzz Canada has an army!?"   - obviously he was trying to be humorous which terribly failed.

- "why should we join the army and get killed for $40/hour?"   - I sent him a link of the pay scale for the CF and also told him that when a loved one dies in a terrorist attack, he'll be thinking differently.

- "the military sucks! f**king baby killers, f**k bush!"   - I didn't even want to respond to this girl because this remark made my eyeballs bleed due to it's incredible stupidity.

- "Canadas army sucks!" - In this case, I searched up a few articles on Canadas accomplishments, such as WWII and another article of the team of Canada snipers who set that world record shot killing an enemy 2,430 metres away. Along with numerous kick a$$ pictures of our military in action.

I'd say about 50% of Canada who are saying these awful things will be eating their own words when this happens. I remember when the U.S. was attacked at 9/11, thousands and thousands of people were already signing up for the military. I imagine having the same situation happening in Canada, but if I see our government not doing anything about our current military status, I will lose faith in our citizens and our government.

-Emilio De Angelis


----------



## Wolfe

The people who are saying those things are completely ignorant and stupid to my eyes i just don't listen to them but if something happens in our soil i wish not. Those people will turn right away to the army. Here is an example some guys are talking about police and they are saying "f**k the police f***ing cops", but when there is something happening to them like they get stolen or beat up they will call 911 right away.

Wolf


----------



## TheShepherd

I tell my friends that I want to join the Army because of the looming terrorist threat that Canada faces, and they all call me rediculous, 'cause Canada has never done anything to terrorists. Some people just don't get it.


----------



## Greg_o

I just tell them Im joining to help others. Ive heard the "Canada has an army?" joke after a presentation or when I tell a friend what I want to do. If these people knew someone currently serving they would probably have more respect for the military. Ive had a few friends say "Cant you die there?", I was shocked to say the least. Thats the only knowledge some people have of the military....your in danger. I try and open their eyes making them realize that without the military, they would be in danger also. Thankfully to the brave men currently serving/who have served, we live in a free country...


----------



## Wolfe

Greg_o said:
			
		

> Thankfully to the brave men currently serving/who have served, we live in a free country...



Well said.

Wolf


----------



## CdnArtyWife

I think the worst thing that I have heard as of late came from a military spouse. When I told her of the bombings in London, England her response was "how does that affect us?" I was incredulous! This particular spouse will be experiencing the deployment of her husband in as little as 3 months!! When I mentioned this to my husband, all he could say was "well for some people ignorance is bliss".


----------



## Mappy

> "how does that affect us?"




That is one of the dumbest things I've heard, and the fact that it was a military spouse who said it makes it worse.


----------



## bossi

CdnArtyWife said:
			
		

> ... "how does that affect us?" ...



A tip of the hat to the fellow who said "ignorance is bliss" ...



> There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies -- and that is fighting without them.
> --- Sir Winston S. Churchill



I'd politely suggest Churchill's quip applies equally to allied nations, as well as the alliance between soldiers and civilians - the bayonets at the front rely upon their entire nation for support ... which includes industry, society and ... taxpayers ...



> "You knew why you were doing it â â€ the men overseas might not get back.
> There were lives involved. So the welding had to be perfect."
> -- BETHENA MOORE, 83, about the "Rosie the Riveter" memorial in Richmond, Calif.



Thus, let's be cautious about ranting and raving about how ignorant/stupid/beneath contempt those civvie pukes are ... (i.e. do we really need to make more enemies ... or should we perhaps take a deep breath, and set about to win some hearts and minds ... right here at home).

One of our Army's Strategic Goals is "Connecting With Canadians", for good reason.
How does that affect me, you?
Well, it affects all of us in many ways, every day.

There was a great recruiting slogan "YOU are the best recruiter", meaning that it wasn't just the recruiting centre that's involved in recruiting.  Every day you wear your uniform in public, you're a billboard - an example for potential recruits, something for children to look up to (both literally and figuratively ... have you ever noticed how many people describe their earliest childhood memory of a soldier or police officer as "... a really big person ..."?)

When some ignoramus demonstrates their lack of knowledge about the Army, why on Earth does it seem appropriate to lower one's self to their level ... ?  After all, isn't it their ignorance that drives you batty?  Since two wrongs never make a right, and even though it's painful, it's like swatting mosquitoes - every one you silence is one less that'll breed ...

Get your facts straight, and correct misinformation with information.

Show people what a REAL soldier looks like, talks like, and acts like.

And, you never know ... others may be watching - they'll quickly discern the difference between the ignorance of your detractors, their ill-informed myths and vitriole, and your disciplined, informed response ...



> When a military spirit forsakes a people, the profession of arms immediately ceases to be held in honour, and military men fall to the lowest rank of public servants; they are little esteemed and no longer understood. . . . Hence arises a circle of cause and consequence from which it is difficult to escape: the best part of the nation shuns the military profession because that profession is not honoured, and the profession is not honoured because the best part of the nation has ceased to follow it.


-- Alexis de Tocqueville, from "Discovery in America"


----------



## Wolfe

> Thus, let's be cautious about ranting and raving about how ignorant/stupid/beneath contempt those civvie pukes are ... (i.e. do we really need to make more enemies ... or should we perhaps take a deep breath, and set about to win some hearts and minds ... right here at home).



I like what you said and its totally true, even if its hard we should show them what soldiers are...just imagine that some civvie is doing a research on google, he decide to learn about the Canadian army and he ends up on this threat and reads stupid civvie and ignorant and ..... i don't think he will appreciate it. We should try to speak with the people that don't believe in the Canadian army. I think that its possible to show the people in our country that the Canadian army is helping them.....how ?....what i will do if some civvie comes to me and speaks against the Canadian army i will not get angry no not good i will put my mind to it and try to convince him..maybe it will work. Remember that we represent the Canadian army even if you are alone and speak with civvies your represent the Canadian army.

Wolf


----------



## KevinB

Part of the problems is young Canadians, who are not yet soldiers going off like they are BTDT, and condecending to civilians...


----------



## ARMY ISSUE

Terrorist threat?  No there's no threat, Terrorists have threatened Canada. Bullies threaten, to beat you after school, and you worry about it all day, and then before you go out for your beating, 6 of your big brothers friends stomp the crap out of him .But if you are scared all day he doesn't have to show up after class.  It works much better, if the Terrorist just pounced on you un awaress, takes your MP3 hat coat and shoes Jersey and lays a beating on you that you may never wake up from. 
It generally agreed that there is a bully in the school yard, and that two of your brothers are looking for him. Just because you are sitting on the monkey bars doesn't mean he won't come and beat you. Six brothers protecting you, and looking for the bully, is better than denying there is a bully, waiting for the beating to come. 
One way or another Canada is involved, ignorant people say ignorant things, but the majority of Canadians have stones to walk into the school yard and find that bully.


----------



## Wolfe

KevinB said:
			
		

> Part of the problems is young Canadians, who are not yet soldiers going off like they are BTDT, and condecending to civilians...



Wow 2 times you got me good you are good . I am not a soldier that is true but i try to think like one because i am gonna be one and from my civvie experience i give my toughts.

Cheers


----------



## career_radio-checker

KevinB said:
			
		

> Part of the problems is young Canadians, who are not yet soldiers going off like they are BTDT, and condecending to civilians...



Couldn't agree more

just take a look at the profile at some of those who posted on this thread.

If someone lips off about the CF (get ready for it) SO WHAT!!!!

They have their opinions and you have yours. Don't expect people to bow down and kiss your mark IIIs every time you strut your uniform? I'm just as proud of being in the CF as the next bloke but I don't expect to be exhaulted like a prince riding on a high horse. If I picked a fight with every person who ever gave me a scoff,  a glare, or disagreed with me; then I would be no better than a school yard bully. So do your job and let civies live the way they want to live.


----------



## P-Free

There is a reason why we brawl with silly civilians sometimes...

Some peoples minds just can't be changed. 

P....


----------



## 1feral1

R0B said:
			
		

> Not at all, I'm just saying that terrorism is a negligible threat; it isn't the prerogative of the Canadian Forces to investigate or arrest terrorists within Canada.
> 
> I'd like to see the Canadian Forces' budget increased so that more money can be invested into training and equipment, namely, to allow for aging hardware to be replaced more frequently.



Well ROB, many people in Australia thought the same as you until 12 Oct 02 (well before the liberation of Iraq), and that was the beginning of the bloodletting on innocent Aussie tourists at Kuta Beach. 89 Aussie killed, whole families wiped out, vapourised, killed, and a total of 202 murdered all up, including a man from Wynyard Saskatchewan, 40km from my home town of Quill Lake.

Saying that such attacks in Canada are neglibible is PURE nonsense! I assure you that many home grown Cdn born extremests are knawing wood in anticipation to strap on a bomb on any busy street or station somewhere between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of our great nation. Waiting for a weak moment of their choice.

Now once again a matter of weeks ago, we lost more Aussies in Bali again. Many terr plots snuffed before they happened here in Australia, and now the recent arrests of 17 muslims and many more later (you should see the lists of what was recovered by police guns- ammo-large qtys of chemicals, mobile phones, books, tapes CDs, all terr info and advice etc), all hell bent to MURDER us in cold blood on our own soil. Some Aussie born others, immigrated here from the ME.

Personally I think some areas of Canada are terr havens, hiding out in their own ethnic suburbs, blending in like the locals, taking advantage of the sympathisers (and there are many), able to slip thru the weak border into The Great Satan at a moments notice to cause mayhem there. After all Canada has the worlds largest and longest undefended border in the world in many cases separated by an imaginery line.

Why do you think Canada is exempt. Do you think these nutcases even know what a Canada is? Many cant speak even english! They just know it as another western nation which borders on the USA, drinks Coke and eats Big Macs, and has a useful welfare system they can bleed off to their liesure, as the taxpayer foots the bill.

Once you get your nose bloodied by home-growns or imports (I hope I am wrong), maybe then you'll wake up to yourself and realise what crap you have been saying on here. At 20yrs old, I would expect more quality coming from you, and with so fews posts I am even berginning to wonder if you are just wanting to stir the pot.

Meanwhile, just keep your head buried in the sand, you'll be safe   :


----------



## R0B

Australia's long been considered repressive towards Indonesian immigrants, and especially Muslims, and Bali is a Hindu island in a Muslim nation.

Terrorists would not have much to gain by attacking Canada. They'd likely gain some support, but the changes they'd effect would make life harder for them in the long run, and that's something they'd most certainly like to avoid, considering that the United States is so close and so easy to enter. Virtually any terrorist in Canada could just as easily attack the United States. Indonesian terrorists, on the other hand, have no real option, so they attack Australian tourists in what is your version of Mexico.

What have terrorists attacks on Australia accomplished? Roughly the same amount of Australians now consider US foreign policy to be as great a threat to peace and security as Islamic fundamentalism.

And I'm not here to "stir the pot."


----------



## Michael OLeary

R0B said:
			
		

> Australia's long been considered repressive towards Indonesian immigrants, and especially Muslims, and Bali is a Hindu island in a Muslim nation.
> 
> Terrorists would not have much to gain by attacking Canada. They'd likely gain some support, but the changes they'd effect would make life harder for them in the long run, and that's something they'd most certainly like to avoid, considering that the United States is so close and so easy to enter. Virtually any terrorist in Canada could just as easily attack the United States. Indonesian terrorists, on the other hand, have no real option, so they attack Australian tourists in what is your version of Mexico.
> 
> What have terrorists attacks on Australia accomplished? Roughly the same amount of Australians now consider US foreign policy to be as great a threat to peace and security as Islamic fundamentalism.
> 
> And I'm not here to "stir the pot."




"Not stirring the pot" would probably require providing references to back up your various allegations.


----------



## 1feral1

Too right Mike, another know-it-all.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## R0B

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> "Not stirring the pot" would probably require providing references to back up your various allegations.



References have been embedded.

Australia's long been considered repressive towards Indonesian immigrants, and especially Muslims (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAS20050927&articleId=1011, http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:zCXvqgb2NeMJ:www.anu.edu.au/NEC/dunn_paper.pdf+australia+racist+islamic&hl=en, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2000/08/31/austra721.htm,) and Bali is a Hindu island in a Muslim nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Indonesia, http://www.seasite.niu.edu/Indonesian/Islam/BBC%20NEWS%20%20Asia-Pacific%20%20Islam%20in%20Indonesia.htm.)

Terrorists would not have much to gain by attacking Canada. They'd likely gain some support, but the changes they'd effect would make life harder for them in the long run (http://www.cric.ca/pdf_re/double_poll/poll_terrorism_en.pdf, http://www.ukar.org/martin/martin20.html, http://chroniclesmagazine.org/www/Chronicles/2005/October2005/Bissett.html) and that's something they'd most certainly like to avoid, considering that the United States is so close and so easy to enter. Virtually any terrorist in Canada could just as easily attack the United States (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/17/171605.shtml.) Indonesian terrorists, on the other hand, have no real option (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/09/ausbrf0926.htm,) so they attack Australian tourists in what is your version of Mexico.

What have terrorists attacks on Australia accomplished? Roughly the same amount of Australians now consider US foreign policy to be as great a threat to peace and security as Islamic fundamentalism (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-03-28-australia-us_x.htm.)

And I'm not here to "stir the pot."

I disagree with you and I'm a know-it-all? I could just as easily allege the same about you. Why not try to have a civil conversation without childish name-calling?

Sure, terrorism is a problem, but its actual threat has been blown completely out of proportions. Many, many more people are killed every year by a number of things the government could try to invest more money in to stop, but isn't really concerned about because it does not represent a threat to its existence. Terrorists won't attack Canada.


----------



## Infanteer

R0B said:
			
		

> Terrorists won't attack Canada.



So what are you going to say if they do?

And as far as I'm concerned, the fact that a member of my immediate family missed getting incinerated in the WTC due to a chance cancellation means that they pretty much attacked a part of Canada that matters to me....


----------



## career_radio-checker

Rob, I agree with you on many of your points; such as how money should be spent on the police and immigration not on the military to effectively combat terrorism. And that if Canada was attacked it would be like Spain --- the general public would want Canada to pull out. But lets not be so naive to think everybody loves Canada. Not everyone is warm and fuzzy in this world.

Also, I think people would be a little less frothing at the mouth if you filled in your pers profile. You don't have to be in the military to post your opinions here but I'm sure a lot of these guys think you're some naive University student involved with the Student Federation trying to bad mouth their carreer choice. I'm a student too but I recognize that many of the members on Army.ca are veterans of the military for many years and have seen crap that no professor of mine has ever seen and would know how to explain. They bring to the argument something that scholars rarely do... first hand experience. 

Ahhh heck, can't resist being a ham. Thanks guys for serving my country and doing what you do


----------



## 1feral1

R0B said:
			
		

> References have been embedded.
> 
> and Bali is a Hindu island in a Muslim nation
> 
> What have terrorists attacks on Australia accomplished? Roughly the same amount of Australians now consider US foreign policy to be as great a threat to peace and security as Islamic fundamentalism And I'm not here to "stir the pot."
> 
> 
> Sure, terrorism is a problem, but its actual threat has been blown completely out of proportions. Many, many more people are killed every year by a number of things the government could try to invest more money in to stop, but isn't really concerned about because it does not represent a threat to its existence. Terrorists won't attack Canada.




The qoutes you posted are nothing but leftist tree hugging crap, and represents the thoughts of the left.

The Bali bombings of 2002 were before the US and it's Allies entered Iraq. Bali is Australias's holiday playground, and yes its Hindu, but it was infiltrated by muslim extremists, and still is. Thats obvious. The tourist industry is again dead, and the Hindu majority are crying out for the execution of the bombers now. 

Sleepers and radical islam have been in ths country long before 11 Sep 01. Do a search for 'muslim gang rape Sydney 2000'. Its much deeper than Iraq and A-Stan invasions and the hate is a lot older than the OBL years. 

Indonesia has a pop of about 280,000,000 people who live on 13,000 out of 16,000 islands. Ya there is radials there JI for one, but its not just the JI and other extreme muslims in Indonesia, its the extreme muslims from everywhere else too, many of which are here, plus teh clean-skins. The ones arrested here on terr charges are from a host of ME countries, and west Africa, plus soem clean-skins. In many ways Indonesia is the weakest of our problems, and they too have their own problems within. 

Do you honestly really actually believe that terrorism today is blown out of proportion? I if you do, thats okay, I can't change what you think, but you don't really have a bloody clue! To go on and treat the terr threat as pisss weak is pure foolishness, and even comparing it to people being killed by a number of other things is nothing but a disgusting and gutless INSULT to those who have been murdered, and to their families who live daily with the loss of their loved ones. Maybe you would have a different view if some you knew was at the WTC or Paddy's Bar at Kuta Beach, or if you survived something this traumatic yourself.

Meanwhile I suggest you stay in school, and listen more to your leftie profs spout the crap they want you to believe. In time you'll grow up, and one day, get some REAL life experience behind you, and maybe then you'll realise 'gee how I ever could have thought that'.

Have a squizz at the thread Australia Thwarts Huge Terrorist Plot and disect that! Try www.islamicsydney.com go to forums and see whats on the minds of Sydney's islamic youth these days.

If I appear hostile, I am a tad, because I have read many threads by FNGs who have empty profiles, and play the political card like you are. Being new, maybe you show sniff around a bit before posting such 'in depth' thoughts and political views on some real serious topics which require more debate than a few articals from the leftist INet and topics talked over a warm beer in a smokey uni pub. At the end of the day, we can agree on one thing, and that is our views.


 :brickwall:

Wes


----------



## larry Strong

The end result of the often repeated mantra "We are a Nation of Peacekeepers", now we have generations thinking no one hates us. 

And we have had terrs attack us, though it was prior 9/11. Air India, and then there was that Rassim(sp) fella who wanted to blow up LAX, the kid from BC killed in Chechnya, the lovely Khadr family....the list goes on, where there's 1 rat there are always others. 

Todays news. An Alberta man
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051122/jose_padilla_051122/20051123?hub=World

I thank God every day that none of our home grown have the balls to go to Allah.


----------



## R0B

I've filled in my profile a bit more. Thanks for the advice.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> So what are you going to say if they do?
> 
> And as far as I'm concerned, the fact that a member of my immediate family missed getting incinerated in the WTC due to a chance cancellation means that they pretty much attacked a part of Canada that matters to me....



If they do, I'll admit I was wrong, but it's almost certainly not going to happen.
Sorry to hear about your loss.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> And we have had terrs attack us, though it was prior 9/11. Air India, and then there was that Rassim(sp) fella who wanted to blow up LAX, the kid from BC killed in Chechnya, the lovely Khadr family....the list goes on, where there's 1 rat there are always others.
> 
> Todays news. An Alberta man
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051122/jose_padilla_051122/20051123?hub=World
> 
> I thank God every day that none of our home grown have the balls to go to Allah.



Those were attacks by Canadians, rather than attacks on Canada.


----------



## Infanteer

R0B said:
			
		

> I've filled in my profile a bit more. Thanks for the advice.



Wow - you added a "0".  



> If they do, I'll admit I was wrong, but it's almost certainly not going to happen.



On September 10, 2001 most Americans would have laughed you off the stage if you would have talked about guys taking planes over and using them as cruise missiles to bring down two of the largest buildings in the United States (and cave in the side of the world's largest office building).   By nature of our role in Afghanistan and our close relationship to the U.S. and Britain, we are targets for global Salafists driving the Islamic Insurgency; they've said it loud and clear, and these people usually say what they mean.

In a more general sense, give Samual Huntington's The Soldier and the State a read.   Soldiers, and by extent the entire National Security Establishment, cannot afford to say _"it's almost certainly not going to happen"_ because the day it does happen, all eyes and fingers will be upon us as to why we let it happen.   You can't eliminate possibilities when the responsibility of "Standing on Guard for Thee" rests on your shoulders.

Never say never.


----------



## McG

R0B said:
			
		

> If they do, I'll admit I was wrong, but it's almost certainly not going to happen.


OBL specifically mentioned Canada as a target in at least one of his post-Afghanistan invasion videos.


----------



## Kev T

I thought good ol' Osama clearly stated Canada as one of the countries he will attack. I don't think that's a statement to be just quietly brushed under the rug.


----------



## career_radio-checker

Rob

If you didn't see the news this morning than I suggest you check this out from CTV.CA

Madrid terror suspect had Montreal Metro info
CTV.ca News Staff

A Spanish newspaper is reporting that information about Montreal's subway system was found on the computer of a man questioned in relation to the Madrid terror bombings. 

"It's the kind of information that people who are preparing an attack will need," terrorism expert Michel Juneau-Katsuya told CTV News. "It's far from information a simple tourist who wanted to use the metro would be using." 

The El Pais newspaper reports police found detailed plans and photos of the Montreal Metro on the hard drive of Abdelhak Chergui's computer. It also included information on things like seat layouts, passenger capacities, and the timings of when doors open and close. 

Chergui is a 32-year-old telecommunications student from Morocco. He was arrested in May along with his brother Abdelkhalak, and questioned by investigators. 

At the time, police said the pair was suspected of helping finance the Madrid attacks and providing weapons to those who carried them out. Abdelhak Chergui was also suspected of jamming the phone lines in Spain during those attacks. 

The brothers were released on a lack of evidence, but they were ordered to surrender their passports. 

"It is a little bit alarming to see that the judge in this particular case released the individuals," said Juneau-Katsuya. "It does not mean that the information was not extremely pertinent for the case." 

Transit and security officials in Montreal say they are aware of the report, but are refusing to comment further. 

"They're likely to have received the information much earlier than the journalists," said Juneau-Katsuya. 

Also found was an ad for a Bruce Willis movie that was shot in the Montreal transit system. 

In addition, the report says the computer had detailed information on Spanish trains and a map of the London underground. 

On March 11, 2004 bombs blew through trains in Madrid, killing 191 people and wounding more than 1,500. 

Militants claimed responsibility for the blasts, and said they were acting on behalf of al Qaeda. They said the attacks were in retaliation for the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq who were sent by then Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, a conservative. 

Socialists, led by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, won an election three days after the bombings. Shortly after Zapatero took power, Spanish troops were pulled out of Iraq. 

In total, 26 people are in jail in connection with the Madrid bombings, but 80 more have been questioned and released. 

Federal Minister of Transportation Jean LaPierre says there's no imminent risk to the Canadian transportation network, but he knows Canada is on the list of some terrorists. 

On Wednesday, LaPierre announced a $110 million investment in big city transit security.

"This contribution program is going to cover 75 per cent of the cost that the transit authorities are going to incur in their security measures," LaPierre told reporters in Ottawa.

"When I travel the country I realize that most transit authorities don't have the money, and so if we want them to make it a priority we have to have a substantial contribution." 

Canada, among other countries, has been listed by Osama bin Laden as a terrorist target, but RCMP officials say there is no evidence of any imminent or concrete threat.

"Now, some of those countries have already been targeted, and we're getting close to being next on the roll," said Juneau-Katsuya.



So what does this mean? So he had images and info about Montreal's Metro system, he didn't act on them and he wasn't even prooven guilty of helping the bombings, right? If this article proves anything it's that Canada is not immune to attack and that targets within our borders are under the watchful eyes of foreign terrorists.   Even if the guy wasn't convicted, I'd be suspicious of anyone who is even associated with a terrorist group.

On a positive note I think thanks are in order to Rob for taking the time to engage in this topic and discussing in detail each point and counter-point. Whatever your political views may be (left or right) I think we can all agree that it is refreshing to see someone from outside the military and in university who takes the time to consult a different source of information not available on campus.(hint hint say your university name on your profile, no secret police in Canada and there are about a 100 000 students in Toronto so you won't give away your true identity). It shows initiative and is much more creditable than the usual crap we hear from the CSA or other student groups who's only arguments are "Canada out of Afghanistan, Canada off our Campus," and then accuse the CF of torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib (when we aren't in Iraq) and say that we are occupying Haiti (when there are 3 CF personnel there on a UN sanctioned mission).

Edit: forgot to put my source in for this article http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051123/montreal_metro_051123/20051123?hub=TopStories


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Correct me if im wrong, but when OBL named off all the western countries he planned on having attacked, including Canada, arent we the last ones yet to be attacked now that Spain and Britain have been bombed?

If terrorists wouldnt bother bombing anything in Canada, why are they bothering to shadow the public transit systems in Toronto and Montreal? ( I cant find a link to the news article, it was during the summer)

I guess theyre just doing it for fun  :
Attacks take alot of planning and preparation, and its just a matter of time.Im not going to bother saying things like "i hope it never happens" because im absolutely convinced that its just a matter of time.

As other posters have said, the extremists do not differentiate between us and the United States, they dont think about borders.They are out to bomb and attack the western nations.... they wouldnt attack Canada?

We share a border, are one of the US's biggest trading partners, we helped them invade Afghanistan, we're both part of NATO, our cultures have all kinds of similiarities, "we both drink coke and eat big macs" ... 

To the terrorists, Canada represents all the same things the United States does.
"They have nothing to gain from attacking Canada." 

They arent looking to gain anything, theyre looking to kill as many westerners as possible, and unfortunately, that includes us.

Also, in regards to the Spain attack, I dont think Canadians would act like the spaniards and want out military out of the middle east, although I could be wrong, I beleive the public reaction would be quite the opposite, and many many people would want to see action immediately.


----------



## 1feral1

ROB - Adding a ZERO to your profile does nothing but show how much contempt you have for the members who asked you to do so in good faith. Doing such as just reinforced my thoughts of your actual intentions on this site, a sub-profesional shyte disturber!

Thanks for singlehandedly solving the terr problem here in Australia, I am finally happy I have FINALLY met an expert in the field.

 :


----------



## Zartan

I'm surprised no one has brought up the Groupe Roubaix (spelling?) yet - a terror cell with connections in Montreal and Roubaix, France, and associated with Al-Qaeda. They were a definate terrorist threat - one member, Ahmed Ressam, was one of the plotters of the Los Angeles millenium bombing. But they were captured years ago. Unfortunately, one of it's leaders, Fateh Kamel, was released from a French Prison after four years for "good behaviour", and now walks again the streets of Montreal. On the other hand, the Americans still have Ressam, and he could be facing 130 years in prison.


----------



## cobbler

> That's Australia, not Canada. I wouldn't be surprised if Australia had more trouble with terrorists for reasons I've already mentioned.



Don't comment on things that you have absolutely no idea about. The muslim population in this country is treated with the same rights and dignity of every other group.

Australia is hated by many Indonesians, simply because of who we are, a free, rich, democratic and proud nation. Our lead in East Timor only made things worse, the Indo media is so extremist and corrupt, they showed photos of dead Timorese civilians and said that they were killed by aussie troops, when in actual fact it was Indonesian army trained militia who killed them.  

We became a target because of Timor, and there is absolutely no doubt in anybodies mind that what we did there was justified, and needed for the protection of innocent timorese people. 

Peacekeeping creates enemies too, just as many as war can, Canada says it is a nation of peacekeepers, so you can be sure that there are evil extremists out there wanting to grind their axe and use it on Canada. Simply denying that will only make things worse.


----------



## R0B

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Wow - you added a "0".



There isn't anything else I can add (other than making my email account public, which I'd prefer not to do) given that I'm not yet in the military.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> On September 10, 2001 most Americans would have laughed you off the stage if you would have talked about guys taking planes over and using them as cruise missiles to bring down two of the largest buildings in the United States (and cave in the side of the world's largest office building).   By nature of our role in Afghanistan and our close relationship to the U.S. and Britain, we are targets for global Salafists driving the Islamic Insurgency; they've said it loud and clear, and these people usually say what they mean.
> 
> In a more general sense, give Samual Huntington's The Soldier and the State a read.   Soldiers, and by extent the entire National Security Establishment, cannot afford to say _"it's almost certainly not going to happen"_ because the day it does happen, all eyes and fingers will be upon us as to why we let it happen.   You can't eliminate possibilities when the responsibility of "Standing on Guard for Thee" rests on your shoulders.
> 
> Never say never.



I only speak which such definite terms as a civilian, on conditions of anonymity. I would never do so in any professional context.

I'm sure Americans would disbelieve you if you were to foretell the September 11th attacks, but if you were merely to say that a terrorist attack would happen, and speak with no certain details, it would not be difficult to imagine, given the history of terrorist attacks against the United States from all manners of terrorists.



			
				Kev T said:
			
		

> I thought good ol' Osama clearly stated Canada as one of the countries he will attack. I don't think that's a statement to be just quietly brushed under the rug.



Osama bin Laden says a lot of things, most of his threats never pan out. As I noted, Canada is not a strategic target for terrorists, and would likely harm their cause more than it would do to benefit it.



			
				career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> So what does this mean? So he had images and info about Montreal's Metro system, he didn't act on them and he wasn't even prooven guilty of helping the bombings, right? If this article proves anything it's that Canada is not immune to attack and that targets within our borders are under the watchful eyes of foreign terrorists.   Even if the guy wasn't convicted, I'd be suspicious of anyone who is even associated with a terrorist group.



I don't know why he would have had that information. If I were planning a terrorist attack, I'd try to accumulate as much information as possible, which would include schematics of similar targets for comparison purposes. Maybe he had it for htat purpose, maybe he had it as an alibi to say he was researching transit systems. I don't know. It's certainly cause for concern, but it's far from proof of a terrorist attack or an intended terrorist attack.

I've added more information to my profile, thanks for the advice.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> Correct me if im wrong, but when OBL named off all the western countries he planned on having attacked, including Canada, arent we the last ones yet to be attacked now that Spain and Britain have been bombed?




Canada and Italy are yet to be attacked.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> If terrorists wouldnt bother bombing anything in Canada, why are they bothering to shadow the public transit systems in Toronto and Montreal? ( I cant find a link to the news article, it was during the summer)
> 
> I guess theyre just doing it for fun   :
> Attacks take alot of planning and preparation, and its just a matter of time.Im not going to bother saying things like "i hope it never happens" because im absolutely convinced that its just a matter of time.




What proof of this exists?



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> As other posters have said, the extremists do not differentiate between us and the United States, they dont think about borders.They are out to bomb and attack the western nations.... they wouldnt attack Canada?
> 
> We share a border, are one of the US's biggest trading partners, we helped them invade Afghanistan, we're both part of NATO, our cultures have all kinds of similiarities, "we both drink coke and eat big macs" ...
> 
> To the terrorists, Canada represents all the same things the United States does.
> "They have nothing to gain from attacking Canada."
> 
> They arent looking to gain anything, theyre looking to kill as many westerners as possible, and unfortunately, that includes us.



If they're looking to just kill as many westerners as possible, it's interesting that the vast majority of that they consistently attack American and British targets, while forsaking other western countries. The lowest level fundamentalist might just be out to kill any "infidel," but terrorist cells aren't. They're out to accomplish political objectives, and attacking Canada would only be a setback to them.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> Also, in regards to the Spain attack, I dont think Canadians would act like the spaniards and want out military out of the middle east, although I could be wrong, I beleive the public reaction would be quite the opposite, and many many people would want to see action immediately.



Many people would want Canada to strengthen its military and take a more active role in fighting terrorism, but don't forget that the vast majority of Canadians vote Liberal or NDP. A lot of them are going to call for Canadian troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan and many other overseas locations. 



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> ROB - Adding a ZERO to your profile does nothing but show how much contempt you have for the members who asked you to do so in good faith. Doing such as just reinforced my thoughts of your actual intentions on this site, a sub-profesional shyte disturber!



_That's the ticket; I added the "0" to my military experience section to insult the members who asked me to fill in my profile._



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> Don't comment on things that you have absolutely no idea about. The muslim population in this country is treated with the same rights and dignity of every other group.



I almost certainly know more about this than you do. Australia is considered by many to be among the most racist countries in the developed world. It's probably the only developed country to keep illegal immigrants in concentration camps, which have been repeatedly criticized by NGOs and foreign governments. There's a lot of discontent for Australia among Muslims, aboriginals, Asian and Polynesians. In many instances, racism is considered by minorities to be a greater issue than it is by minorities in the United States.
Don't comment on things you have absolutely no idea about. 



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> Australia is hated by many Indonesians, simply because of who we are, a free, rich, democratic and proud nation. Our lead in East Timor only made things worse, the Indo media is so extremist and corrupt, they showed photos of dead Timorese civilians and said that they were killed by aussie troops, when in actual fact it was Indonesian army trained militia who killed them.



That's right, they hate you because you have democracy (they have democracy, too!)
That's just rhetoric.
If "many" Indonesians hate Australia just because you're rich, free, democratic and proud, how do you explain how nowhere near as many Mexicans hate America, and nowhere near as many Cubans hate Canada? 



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> We became a target because of Timor, and there is absolutely no doubt in anybodies mind that what we did there was justified, and needed for the protection of innocent timorese people.
> 
> Peacekeeping creates enemies too, just as many as war can, Canada says it is a nation of peacekeepers, so you can be sure that there are evil extremists out there wanting to grind their axe and use it on Canada. Simply denying that will only make things worse.



The US and Australia looked the other way when Indonesia invaded Timor. What did Australia do when 1/5 of the island's population was massacred? Nothing.
The US didn't even stop selling arms to Indonesia until after the end of the Cold War, and even then, it did so against the wishes of the President.

EDIT: Quote format problems corrected.


----------



## armyvern

Now you're professing to know more about Australia and it's workings than our Australian members? Must be hard to keep on top of all that while expanding upon your knowledge as the World Terrorism SME. You are one arrogant young man.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

LOL what? :

so because canadians vote liberal and NDP, that makes them pacifists? Sure, makes perfect sense. And secondly, many more canadians vote Conservative, or even the Alliance before the NDP.... whatever.

0 mil exp - So then you admit you have no idea what youre talking about in terms to the military?

What political objectives are you talking about? Is the Al-Qaeda party trying to win power in england and america then?
The only consistent pattern in their attacks, is that theyre killing westerners, and attempting to further the "jihad".

You want proof of the transit system being shadowed? Well I happened to be in the city of Toronto during the summer when the arrests were made, so im certain finding an article on it can't be that difficult, so ill look. And since you cant take someones word for something and would rather send them on a proof mission, i think you should prove every single statement you make, from this point forward.

I thought it was fairly common knowledge around here that terror cells were active all over Canada, and that the transit systems were being analyzed...

Ive voted Liberal before, I guess i want the troops out of afghanistan?

EDIT: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1100357975032_95767175/?hub=TopStories
         http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050707/canadaworld_securityreax_20050707?s_name=&no_ads=

^ heres an example of what I was talking about, for the SME to look at. OUUU SHOCKING   

"We have never said that we are not at threat because in fact, we're one of five nations that were named by al Qaeda and therefore that is why we take these kinds of events very, very seriously." - Public Safety Minister, Anne McLellan


----------



## 1feral1

R0B said:
			
		

> 1. I almost certainly know more about this than you do. Australia is considered by many to be among the most racist countries in the developed world. It's probably the only developed country to keep illegal immigrants in concentration camps, which have been repeatedly criticized by NGOs and foreign governments. There's a lot of discontent for Australia among Muslims, aboriginals, Asian and Polynesians. In many instances, racism is considered by minorities to be a greater issue than it is by minorities in the United States.
> Don't comment on things you have absolutely no idea about.
> 
> 
> 2. The US and Australia looked the other way when Indonesia invaded Timor. What did Australia do when 1/5 of the island's population was massacred? Nothing.



About profiles, its no big deal not to be military, but there is more to profiles to add, like other experiences, even its being a student, and what one is majoring in, or his hobbies or ambitions. 

Reply to para 1: Cobbler happens to be Australian, and so am I! As citizens here, I am ******* sure we know more about this country and the regions politics than you do, considering you gather rather extreme leftist views and only seem to mollycoddle those thoughts.

Reply to para 2. WTF do you know about East Timor and Australia, and what happened back in 1975? Do you know of the Australian journalists who were murdered by DIRECT tank fire? Their deaths were actually recorded on film. We have deeper connections to that region which go back to the Sparrow Force days and beyond. 

In 1999, Australia lead the invasion, and one just can't do someting that big on a moments notice. After what had gone in in the months previous we acted as fast as one could. So, I suggest you shut your pie-hole in regards to things which you have only read about on the INet, and never participated in. 

I have been working closely with Timor L'Este Forces on 4 occasions since 2003, and infact even tonight, we have shared a few beers and even exchanged gifts. I have talked to the FDTL vets, some who first fought in 1975 in the J against the Indonesian troops. Strangely enough, I have also worked alongside with Indonesian generic TNI and the Kopasus (thats their Special Forces BTW), but being the SME, I am sure you knew that) troops too.

With the ongoing shyte spewing from ROB's mouth, I suggest we simply ignore him, as it's obvious he wants an audience (just read every post he has made and decide for yourself). Simply put, you can't win an argument with an idiot because he has the experience, and will win everytime, and we don't get anywhere except lowering ourselves to his standard.

I have had enough of this idiot and I predict a meltdown is forthcoming, so lets sit back and watch the fireworks. 

Anyways, I am going back to the Mess for another Cougar Whisky, then crash in my insect infested hell hole of a room (yes I have a bug-bar)here in the SMA.

 :warstory: Wes :warstory:


----------



## Danjanou

R0B said:
			
		

> If "many" Indonesians hate Australia just because you're rich, free, democratic and proud, how do you explain how nowhere near as many Mexicans hate America, and nowhere near as many Cubans hate Canada?



Rob, like most of us here I try to stay within my arcs. I wouldn't claim to know more about Australia then members living and serving there, anymore than I'd claim to be an SME on weapons and ballistics over one of our real SMEs in that area.

Based on frequent travel and business in both Cuba and Mexico ( as well as elsewhere in Latin America) in the past 12 odd years I can assure you that the opinion of the average peon and/or companero in regards to their northern neighbours may surprise you.

Perhaps you may actually want to visit these places to get your facts rather than from your tattered copy of _"Young Socialists Happy Happy Joy Joy Warm Fuzzy Hugs View of the World"_.

If I'm mistaken and you've actually traveled to either of these places may I suggest that next time you move farther a field than the swim up bar at your walled all-inclusive resort to gather your information.

However it is nice to see you've maintained a consistency in all your posts here so far.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Key word is yet. But you should be safe up there in your ivory tower, so why worry?



Exactly. On Sept 10, 2001, do you think Americans were thinking that a terrorist attack was imminent? It's not like Al-Queda will call the PM and say, "ok, we're going to attack this target on this day, at this time...be ready!" :


----------



## rifleman

I think the threat is low because we are so close to the US. It's like a beachhead to the US. why would they wreck that.

Hitting Canada is like a beating up the smallest kid in school. People feel bad for him but it doesn't make the bully seem any more powerful.

As for the Ivory tower, I think some people are still living in Fall-out shelters from the Cold war.


----------



## Danjanou

[quote ] As for the Ivory tower, I think some people are still living in Fall-out shelters from the Cold war. [/quote]

But it's comfortable and I had cable installed. 8)


----------



## R0B

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Reply to para 1: Cobbler happens to be Australian, and so am I! As citizens here, I am ******* sure we know more about this country and the regions politics than you do, considering you gather rather extreme leftist views and only seem to mollycoddle those thoughts.



Congratulations. As Australian citizens, I take it the both of you were born with PhDs in Australian History, South East Asian studies, International Relations, Peace and Conflict Studies, etc... So I won't argue with your expertise.

Newsflash, being born in Australia doesn't make you and expert on Australia. I'm not an expert on Australia, but it would unfortunately seem that I needn't know much about racism in Australia to know more about it than you do. I haven't tried to debate Australian politics, Australian social norms, how to catch a kangaroo, etc..., so don't accuse me of pretending to know more about Australia than you do. I most certainly don't, but I've never claimed to. Do you know more about racism in Australia than I do? It's quite clear you do not, because it appears you've tacitly agreed with Cobbler, who seems to think it doesn't exist. It most certainly does, and minorities feel it harder in your country than they do almost anywhere else.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Reply to para 2. WTF do you know about East Timor and Australia, and what happened back in 1975? Do you know of the Australian journalists who were murdered by DIRECT tank fire? Their deaths were actually recorded on film. We have deeper connections to that region which go back to the Sparrow Force days and beyond.



I'm not going to waste my time telling you what I know so you can say I've received all my information from Lenin himself. This is what I've written about Timor; let me know where you object:

_-The US and Australia looked the other way when Indonesia invaded Timor. 
-What did Australia do when 1/5 of the island's population was massacred? Nothing.
-The US didn't even stop selling arms to Indonesia until after the end of the Cold War, and even then, it did so against the wishes of the President._

Do you dispute any of those points? I doubt it, you probably only hold them in contempt because they've come from me.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> In 1999, Australia lead the invasion, and one just can't do someting that big on a moments notice. After what had gone in in the months previous we acted as fast as one could. So, I suggest you shut your pie-hole in regards to things which you have only read about on the INet, and never participated in.



Yeah, I get all my information from Pravda.ru. I'm not making things up. I try to read peer-edited reviews from authoritative academic journals, and base any comments I make upon facts taken from those sources. Those sources, I should add, are more or less indisputable, and are generally held by governments and academic institutions to be accurate histories of what occurred.
And what happened in 1999 doesn't really concern this argument. Sure, Australia came to rescue its Timorese brothers, but only after two and a half decades of oppression and murder. Australia and the global community didn't act anywhere near as fast as it could, it took its time. Unless, that is, if you consider 24-years to be a quick response.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> With the ongoing shyte spewing from ROB's mouth, I suggest we simply ignore him, as it's obvious he wants an audience (just read every post he has made and decide for yourself). Simply put, you can't win an argument with an idiot because he has the experience, and will win everytime, and we don't get anywhere except lowering ourselves to his standard.
> 
> I have had enough of this idiot and I predict a meltdown is forthcoming, so lets sit back and watch the fireworks.



Do you have to insult me to try to convince yourself that I'm wrong?



			
				armyvern said:
			
		

> Now you're professing to know more about Australia and it's workings than our Australian members? Must be hard to keep on top of all that while expanding upon your knowledge as the World Terrorism SME. You are one arrogant young man.



Being an Australian citizen doesn't automatically imbue you with knowledge of that country, and I've never claimed to know more about Australia than any other member here. It is likely, however, that I know more about racism and xenophobia in Australia than the majority of Australian members here, because I study that sort of thing.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> LOL what? :
> 
> so because canadians vote liberal and NDP, that makes them pacifists? Sure, makes perfect sense. And secondly, many more canadians vote Conservative, or even the Alliance before the NDP.... whatever.



It doesn't matter that more Canadians vote Conservative than the NDP, and Canadian Alliance hasn't existed for two years. What matters is that more people vote Liberal, NDP, Green, etc... than they do for the Conservatives and parties that share similar ideas in regards to militarism or whatever you'd like to call it. I never said Canadians are pacifist because the vote NDP or Liberal, so I don't see why you'd make that assumption. Logically, people wouldn't be pacifists because they vote for either of the two parties, but would rather vote for one of those two parties because they are pacifists. Regardless, I make no such claim, I'm just trying to point out that the left is stronger than the center. You don't seem to understand what I've wrote. Read it again.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> 0 mil exp - So then you admit you have no idea what youre talking about in terms to the military?



More or less, yes.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> What political objectives are you talking about? Is the Al-Qaeda party trying to win power in england and america then?
> The only consistent pattern in their attacks, is that theyre killing westerners, and attempting to further the "jihad".
> 
> You want proof of the transit system being shadowed? Well I happened to be in the city of Toronto during the summer when the arrests were made, so im certain finding an article on it can't be that difficult, so ill look. And since you cant take someones word for something and would rather send them on a proof mission, i think you should prove every single statement you make, from this point forward.



They're not out to just kill westerners. That's just rhetoric western governments have been pushing to alienate citizens from the terrorist's causes and keep voters from analyzing foreign policy.
If they were actually out to kill a lot of people, their best target would be some major sporting event. But no, they're attacking economic and political targets, instead.

I happen to live in Toronto, and I read the newspaper everyday. I don't recall hearing about this story. That's not to say it didn't happen, because I obviously can't keep track of everything that's happening in the news, but you're missing the point. I don't doubt that arrests were made, but I'm wondering why, and with what evidence. Gathering information, for one, is far from blowing up the TTC, and doesn't mean they were going to blow up the TTC, either. I wanted to see the articles not because I doubt they exist, but because I doubt they say what you've inferred from them. And guess what...

Did you actually read the articles to which you've posted links? NOWHERE does it say that terrorists were shadowing any Canadian transit system. See, you just made that up. It says that one Arab man kissed an Arab book, placed it in a briefcase and ran away. Did the briefcase blow up? No, so why do you think he's a terrorist? Some other guy was hiding his camera as he filmed. Why? Maybe it's because you're not allowed to film anything on TTC property without a permit, and TTC employees will caution you if they see you. So perhaps he was hiding from employees looking to exercise their authority and tell someone what to do? Maybe, he was pretending to be a terrorist so he could be arrested, allege racism and sue the government for $1,000,000. He is suing, and guess what else? The government released him. It seems they don't have any evidence to keep him locked up.
This is just modern McCarthyism.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> I thought it was fairly common knowledge around here that terror cells were active all over Canada, and that the transit systems were being analyzed...



It is common knowledge that there are terrorist organizations in Canada. I've never disputed that.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> Ive voted Liberal before, I guess i want the troops out of afghanistan?



I never said that, either. You've completely missed the point of my comparison. 



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> "We have never said that we are not at threat because in fact, we're one of five nations that were named by al Qaeda and therefore that is why we take these kinds of events very, very seriously." - Public Safety Minister, Anne McLellan



Nice quote. Here's another FROM THE EXACT SAME ARTICLE.

_"Even though there is no present threat against Canada, the prime minister inisted, "we have to be vigilant.""_



			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> Rob, like most of us here I try to stay within my arcs. I wouldn't claim to know more about Australia then members living and serving there, anymore than I'd claim to be an SME on weapons and ballistics over one of our real SMEs in that area.



Likewise.



			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> Based on frequent travel and business in both Cuba and Mexico ( as well as elsewhere in Latin America) in the past 12 odd years I can assure you that the opinion of the average peon and/or companero in regards to their northern neighbours may surprise you.
> 
> Perhaps you may actually want to visit these places to get your facts rather than from your tattered copy of _"Young Socialists Happy Happy Joy Joy Warm Fuzzy Hugs View of the World"_.
> 
> If I'm mistaken and you've actually traveled to either of these places may I suggest that next time you move farther a field than the swim up bar at your walled all-inclusive resort to gather your information.



I've traveled extensively around Mexico, and South-East Asia, and I've been to Cuba on three occasions. I tourist and resort areas, as I suppose you agree, the locals tend to be very friendly, and while natives from outside such areas don't tend to be as inviting, I didn't get the feeling that they were hostile towards Americans or Canadians, or towards the United States or Canada.

And, I'm most certainly not a socialist.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> How so? How was Spain a major target? We are a target because we are a Western country. And being one of the US's top (still..right?) trading partners is certainly inviting an attack that could disrupt our (and to a smaller extent their) economy. Just an idea. Although I'm more worried about terrorists using Canada as a base to attack the US.



Terrorists probably use Canada as a base to attack the US. That alone is among the best reasons why they won't attack Canada.
How was Spain a major target? They had troops in Iraq, the public did not support this, and fear of terrorist attacks was cited as one of the major reasons why voters in pre-election polls had decided to vote for the socialist opposition. Some terrorist probably figured that a terrorist attack would increase public fear, and result in further support for the socialists, who would withdraw troops from Iraq and pass a bunch of stupid laws. If this was the case, the terrorists were correct, because the opposition won by a landslide. 
Also, there's no proof that Al Qaeda contributed anything to the Madrid bombing. It's quite likely that the terrorists acted independently of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Key word is yet. But you should be safe up there in your ivory tower, so why worry?
> 
> So what kind of proof/evidence should we wait for? Dead commuters in Montreal/Toronto/Ottawa (which I take a vested interest in, my family uses public transit to get to work and school)? Would that be enough 'proof' for you?



I never said we should wait for any proof. Are terrorists trying to attack Canada? I say, no. But that shouldn't influence what the RCMP and CSIS does. We should probably invest more money in both those organizations, stipulating that they use that money to investigate Islamic fundaamentalism.

_Yet_. Canada is yet to be attacked. In 10-years, that same statement will ring as true as it does today.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> You keep claiming that an attack on Canada would be a setback to AQ. Please elabourate. They are not necessarily out looking to kill as many westerners as possible (IMHO), but to set the ground (by making attacks on transit systems etc) to actually terrorize western society enough so that we start making bad decisions which gives them more ammo to start the real jihad. Maybe my tin foil hat fell off today, but I think that the real 'war on(with) terror' has yet to begin.



Canada is a gateway for terrorists bent on attacking the United States. It serves as a headquarters for many Islamic groups that have been accused of terrorism, and Canada's legal system does not allow the government to effectively police and investigate terrorists. Canada's immigration and refugee laws are sub par, and multicultural communities allow terrorists to blend in seamlessly. Canada's involvement in the war on terrorism is minor, and it's relationship with the United States under the Martin administration have been poor. A terrorist attack would likely promote public support for withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan, but this is unlikely to happen, and without public support, the government is unlikely to increase the number of troops it has in Afghanistan, so the entire Afghanistan situation would not likely be affected much. On the other hand, Canada would probably restrict immigration and refugee claimants, and increase funding for counter-terrorism activities, compromising Canada as a base of operations.
Also, any terrorist attack requires a lot of time and money. Attacking Canada when it wouldn't be much harder to attack the United States would be a waste of valuable resources.
A lot of nations hold Canada in high regard as a peacekeeping nation, and believe the Canadian Forces to be very weak, so attacking Canada wouldn't do much in terms of bolstering support among Muslims. On the other hand, any attack on the "Great Satan" proves that America, despite its strength, is not invincible.
So, not only would attacking Canada be a waste of time and money, it would be counter-productive for terrorists within Canada.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Its easier for Cubans and Mexicans to sneak into America (and Canada to a lesser extent) so that they can take advantage of our system. Its harder for Indonesians. If your jealous of someone/something and you can't take the thing you are jealous of, you begin hate it instead.



A lot of South East Asians make it to Australia every year. A lot of Arabs and Middle Easterners also make it to Australia every year, via Indonesia, because it's not hard to get in, but if they catch you, they send you to a concentration camp in the desert. They don't hate Australia because it's hard to get in. If they do, I suppose they've been lying and have just been saying "racism" instead to confound researchers.



			
				Cpl Bloggins said:
			
		

> Exactly. On Sept 10, 2001, do you think Americans were thinking that a terrorist attack was imminent? It's not like Al-Queda will call the PM and say, "ok, we're going to attack this target on this day, at this time...be ready!" :



No, but America had been attacked by terrorists in the recent past, and intelligence reports clearly indicated the terrorist were actively planning attacks.

What's your point, anyways?

If you're saying "we should prepare," I don't disagree with you, and you would have realized that if you had taken the time to read everything instead of just contributing a useless post.
Canada isn't going to get attacked by terrorists. I say that with as much certainty as I say "I'm not going to get into a car accident." I still wear seatbelts.

In any event, the fact that Americans didn't know on September 10th that the events of September 11th would unfold the next day does nothing to prove any point whatsoever. 


Sorry for the long post. I'm trying to address everyone so that none of my detractors can accuse me of escaping their supposed "issues."


----------



## career_radio-checker

Man, you just took 20 minutes of my life away and I want them back!


----------



## Infanteer

:boring:

So what are you trying to say?


----------



## Jungle

R0B said:
			
		

> Being an Australian citizen doesn't automatically imbue you with knowledge of that country, and *I've never claimed to know more about Australia than any other member here*



Earlier, you posted this:


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> *I almost certainly know more about this than you do*



Listen kid, there are a certain number of things you cannot buy or study for; EXPERIENCE is one of them, and you obviously lack in that dept. Travelling in tourist resorts does not count as experience of the real world... Now remove your foot from your mouth, then STFU !!!


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

He goes to U of T, what do you expect?

I wonder if I've argued with him before, or at least laughed at him when he makes these genius statements in class.


----------



## George Wallace

This article is a couple of years old, but it points out the extreme possibilities of anyone, even a trusted friend, being a terrorist.  When Intelligence personnel do their jobs right, there will be no bombings.  It is only when the Police, Intelligence Agencies, etc. are unable to fully do their jobs that we will see any terrorist attacks occurring.  Does that mean that there are no possibilities, or in fact have been no attempts to date, of a terrorist attack in Canada?  No!. It means that there quite likely can be, but if our Intelligence people do their jobs properly, and stop it, you will never hear about it.  rob is naive to spout his views from academia.  He truly doesn't have any inkling of how many dangerous people and places there are out there.  

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=9926&archive=true


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :boring:
> 
> So what are you trying to say?



"Because I go to University and have been endowed with partial knowledge, that can only mean that I am a person of higher learning and intellect, therefor making me the SME on everything.I am right, and you are wrong, just because."

I also like how he attempted to call BS on my comment about terrorists shadowing public transit systems in major canadian cities, and wanteed proof... I provide it, he completely ignores it.

Thats the spirit.... when everybody starts to prove you wrong, just pretend it never happened and carry on!


----------



## 1feral1

R0B said:
			
		

> Newsflash, being born in Australia doesn't make you and expert on Australia"issues."



But a snotty nosed 20yr old uni student does. You've created 12 posts of bullshyte, and have set a new precident in crap, and have succeded in wasting bandwidth on here, and making a fool of yourself, and any reputation you had, has been freshly flushed down the toilet. 

I suggest you quit uni, and become a politician, or better, become an Australian citizen, and work out of our Jakarta enbassy. You'll save Australia for sure :

What a wanker    - Your 1st lesson in Australian slang, and I sure you can figure that out, kid.


----------



## George Wallace

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> But a snotty nosed 20yr old uni student does.


and in Toronto too!


----------



## R0B

What's my point? It's that Canada isn't going to get attacked by terrorists.



			
				Jungle said:
			
		

> Listen kid, there are a certain number of things you cannot buy or study for; EXPERIENCE is one of them, and you obviously lack in that dept. Travelling in tourist resorts does not count as experience of the real world... Now remove your foot from your mouth, then STFU !!!



Here's what I said:

"I've never claimed to know more about Australia than any other member here"

"I almost certainly know more about _this_ than you do"

I said I know more about "this," not Australia, and by "this," I was CLEARLY referring to racism in Australia. Pay attention.



			
				Cpl Bloggins said:
			
		

> He goes to U of T, what do you expect?
> 
> I wonder if I've argued with him before, or at least laughed at him when he makes these genius statements in class.



What's wrong with UofT?
You honestly think that Canada is going to get attacked by terrorists? What's your major?



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> This article is a couple of years old, but it points out the extreme possibilities of anyone, even a trusted friend, being a terrorist.  When Intelligence personnel do their jobs right, there will be no bombings.  It is only when the Police, Intelligence Agencies, etc. are unable to fully do their jobs that we will see any terrorist attacks occurring.  Does that mean that there are no possibilities, or in fact have been no attempts to date, of a terrorist attack in Canada?  No!. It means that there quite likely can be, but if our Intelligence people do their jobs properly, and stop it, you will never hear about it.  rob is naive to spout his views from academia.  He truly doesn't have any inkling of how many dangerous people and places there are out there.



Be sure to report any suspicious activity to the kommisar's office. When the police or intelligence foils a terrorist plot, you'll hear about it.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> I also like how he attempted to call BS on my comment about terrorists shadowing public transit systems in major canadian cities, and wanteed proof... I provide it, he completely ignores it.
> 
> Thats the spirit.... when everybody starts to prove you wrong, just pretend it never happened and carry on!



I knew you must have read something, but I assumed that you probably misinterpreted the articles completely. And I was right, you did. Nowhere in the article does it say that terrorists were shadowing the public transit system. Where did you even get that from? 



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> But a snotty nosed 20yr old uni student does. You've created 12 posts of bullshyte, and have set a new precident in crap, and have succeded in wasting bandwidth on here, and making a fool of yourself, and any reputation you had, has been freshly flushed down the toilet.
> 
> I suggest you quit uni, and become a politician, or better, become an Australian citizen, and work out of our Jakarta enbassy. You'll save Australia for sure :
> 
> What a wanker   - Your 1st lesson in Australian slang, and I sure you can figure that out, kid.



The fact that I'm a university student shouldn't even figure into this debate. What should matter is the fact that I'm going by information your beloved sword-banning government regards as authoritative.

I'd like to give you a lesson in Canadian/American slang but I figure you're the type of hypocrite who would ban me for it.


----------



## George Wallace

Well rob, with your last post you have confirmed my suspicions; you are an idiot.


----------



## GO!!!

Instead of the plus/minus system, perhaps a "dunce" avatar would be more fitting.


> What's your major?



What does that have to do with anything, you twit?

I would say (conservatively) that a third of the regular posters on this site are students, or have post graduate degrees. Many of them have valuable insights from a combination of experience and formal education. I would say, judging by the quality of your writing and skills of persuasion, that you are in second year - maybe, and you are arguing on national security issues, poorly, with posters with lifetimes of relevant experience.

There is a lesson here, one that I learned the hard way too, it is accurately represented with this quote;

 I have often come to regret my speech, never my silence. 

So if you know something, and can provide a *credible* source for it, go ahead, but if you are just sounding off for the sake of getting a response, expect to be muzzled.


----------



## a_majoor

At least as a student at U of T he will have a far better than average chance of seeing first hand the results when his prediction is proven false. 

Perhaps he uses mass transit?

The only reason the Jihadis havn't struck yet is Canada offers many advantages as a staging, training and fundraising area. If I were to make a prediction, they will try to coordinate their strike to coincide with one in the Great Satan, both for maximum impact and since they know any attacks staged from Canada will elicit a huge counter reaction.


----------



## Infanteer

R0B said:
			
		

> You honestly think that Canada is going to get attacked by terrorists? What's your major?



???   Don't be a tool - you'd be hardpressed to keep up if you wanted to hang the academic credentials (and real world experience) wang out around here.



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> What's my point? It's that Canada isn't going to get attacked by terrorists.



Do you have any proof to support this conclusion considering all the evidence to date seems to indicate the opposite.

The threats to Canada have clearly been highlighted.   Osama bin Laden has named us specifically in his messages to his followers in the Islamic Insurgency - writings by experts such as Marc Sageman and Micheal Sheuer have clearly layed out the fact that these men are dedicated and cunning enemies who will do what they say.   We have been fortunate to date to avoid an attack here - most likely because we are not a high payoff target, but in case you didn't notice, we have soldiers in _Dar al-Islam_ which sets us up as a target (like Spain or Britain) by those who adhere to a global Salafist ideology.   Ressam himself considered Canadian targets and the Madrid bombers had information on the Montreal underground in their hardrive.   Montreal was, infact, for quite a period on of the key international nodes of Al Qa'ida (before it moved to London) and a central base for the Mahgrib cell or Al Qa'ida's network.   As well, you'd have to do alot to convince anyone that our favorite family, the Khadrs, was living a quiet and neutral life here while supporting _jihad_ abroad.

Pull your head out of the sand - everything the enemy has said and done shows us to be a target of oppurtunity.


----------



## cobbler

> -The US and Australia looked the other way when Indonesia invaded Timor.
> -What did Australia do when 1/5 of the island's population was massacred? Nothing.



And did Canada, the UK, New Zealand, China, India, Belgium, etc do anything?
And when conflict broke out in 1999, who was the only country to put its hand up and do something, Australia! We were a bees **** away from all out war with Indonesia.

Yes 1975 was not a proud moment, but nobody else did anything, and in 1999 we had the most to lose, yet we still were the only ones to stop talking and start doing, the UN originally wanting nothing to do with it, so it was Australia who put together, lead, and contributed over 60% of forces to INTERFET. I am grateful for help from nations like Canada, very grateful, but none of it would have happened unless Australia became active.

I am not going to have somebody from ANY other country try and dig the stick in to me about Timor.




> Do you know more about racism in Australia than I do? It's quite clear you do not, because it appears you've tacitly agreed with Cobbler, who seems to think it doesn't exist. It most certainly does, and minorities feel it harder in your country than they do almost anywhere else.





> I said I know more about "this," not Australia, and by "this," I was CLEARLY referring to racism in Australia. Pay attention.



Well you most certainly do NOT know more about racism and cultural integration in Australia than me.
I grew up in one of the most multicultural and ethnically diverse suburbs in the country. I have freinds who are Aussie, English, Macedonian, Albanian, Lebanese, Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, Croation, Filipino, and Serb. When it comes to looking at racism in this country I have truly lived that lesson. On top of this I take a keen interest in looking at the larger picture.
The   minorities who live where I grew up do not feel it harder than anywhere else. It is a working class neighbourhood, so not the flashiest of areas, but everybody, no matter what race lives comfortably, safely, and peacefully. Immigrants and their children are totally accepted into the community. The only hints of racism were freindly jokes between mates, and we all copped our fair share, all was lighthearted and everybody is proud of their origins.
I don't know if you have ever been to Australia, i doubt it, and if you were here I doubt you ventured any further than Sydney Harbour. But you clearly have no understanding of Australia's cultural environment.
You do not know more than racism in this country than me

---
On another note, you try and accuse me of rhetoric, then in your next paragraph you claim Australia has "Concentration camps".
Now i didn't want to go off topic, but that is such a serious and innaccurate comment that it must be rebutted.
We have immigration detention centres for people who enter the country illegally and refuse to leave, just like every other western world country.

If an American comes here illegally and refuses to take the next available flight home, then he is sent to one.
Likewise if somebody comes illegally on a dangerous boat, then they are sent there.
Of course some claim thast they are refugees, they may well be, but they still come here liggeally and must be processed before being allowed in to the nation, they are jumping in the line in front of others who wish to come here.
If they are refugess then they can claim asylum in ANY one of dozens of nations they pass through before arriving in Indonesia. But they do not. One in Indonesia they pay thousands of American dollars (I could do with that kind of money) each to board an unsafe boat, and cross shark and crocodile infested seas to attempt to enter Australia illegally. By doing this they endanger their children, the RAN has had to save hundreds over the last 5 years from sinking boats, sadly hundreds mroe have drowned.

Once caught they are offered a flight home, if they say no then they are placed in detention during the processing phase of their application.

Now we have to control the people who enter our country. Especially with the diseases and unsavoury characters about in the world. If they are true refugess then they should claim refugee status in the first of many safe countries they pass through before taking the irresponsible journey to enter Australia illegally. 

It may be easy for you to judge in Canada. No risk of having thousands of unprocessed people sailing into your waters. Buit it must be done, and frankly i feel no sympathy when they get caught, neither do my ethnic freinds whose parents had to come here legally to escape the wars in former Youguslavia.

The detention centres are not "concentration camps", they are compounds where illegal immigrants are held whilst our authorities can process their requests. If they (illegals) did things by the book then their would be no need, but instead of applying for UN refugee status where appropriate they came all this way, dangerously, iresspinsibly, illlegally, and wasting australia's taxpayers dollars. They are provided with food, beds, TV, computers, internet, sports grounds and equipment, which is what they are entitled to whilst being processed. They are not exterminated like in a concentration camp.

Frankly I would like an apology from you regarding you concentration camp claims, they were false, unbackable, serious, and way off the mark and have no place in discussions such as this.

Sorry everybody else fro straying off topic, but that was a serious claim by ROB, and i was not going to take it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

No problem, thanks for pointing that out. I was obviously just skimming ROB's post, as I have read all that before, and would have called him on it at the time.

MOD EDIT: ROB, show us some proof of these "concentration camps" [ do you really know what that means?]or I will start the warning process on you.


----------



## Jungle

cobbler said:
			
		

> *We have immigration detention centres for people who enter the country illegally* and refuse to leave.../...The detention centres are not "concentration camps",*they are compounds where illegal immigrants are held whilst our authorities can process their requests*. If they (illegals) did things by the book then their would be no need, but instead of applying for UN refugee status where appropriate they came all this way, dangerously, iresspinsibly, illlegally, and wasting australia's taxpayers dollars. They are provided with food, beds, TV, computers, internet, sports grounds and equipment, which is what they are entitled to whilst being processed. They are not exterminated like in a concentration camp.


We have the same thing here; but Rob doesn't know this, because he's too busy being right !!
 http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/factsheets/2004/0311ArrestsDetentions-e.html


----------



## Infanteer

2332Piper said:
			
		

> R0B...go away. You cannot expect to be taken seriously here when:
> 
> a) You claim to know more then others who live and work and experience the country in which you claim to have expert knowledge.
> b) You have you head stuck so far up your rear you...you get the idea.
> c) Your spouting the very same wishy-washy socialist everyone-get-along junk that people on this site hate with a passion, and have already disproved. And;
> d) Your acting like the typical ivory-tower dwelling rose-tinted goggle wearing student that gives the few of us students who don't talk out of their arse a bad name (well, I do sometimes but usually by mistake).



Don't take that line.   "Left-wing" is junk - it makes you nothing but "right wing".   Same with socialist, ivory tower, student.  They do nothing to further the argument.

Everyone, 

If you have nothing to offer except ad hominem attacks which reduce the quality of the thread, then stay off and let those who are interested in considering the facts and logic of the issue discuss the matter at hand.   Signal:Noise people....


----------



## R0B

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well rob, with your last post you have confirmed my suspicions; you are an idiot.



Thanks, George. I'm too kind to post my opinion of you.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Instead of the plus/minus system, perhaps a "dunce" avatar would be more fitting.
> What does that have to do with anything, you twit?



Was that question even directed to you? It's interesting that you would assume to know why I even asked such a question, but you're incapable of knowing what I'm thinking, so don't bother trying, moron.
I asked Bloggins about her major because she insinuated that she and I go to the same school.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> At least as a student at U of T he will have a far better than average chance of seeing first hand the results when his prediction is proven false.
> 
> Perhaps he uses mass transit?
> 
> The only reason the Jihadis havn't struck yet is Canada offers many advantages as a staging, training and fundraising area. If I were to make a prediction, they will try to coordinate their strike to coincide with one in the Great Satan, both for maximum impact and since they know any attacks staged from Canada will elicit a huge counter reaction.



When my prediction is proven false? You should use "if" instead of "when." 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> ???   Don't be a tool - you'd be hardpressed to keep up if you wanted to hang the academic credentials (and real world experience) wang out around here.



I asked two separate questions, why are you trying to combine the two together?
I don't really have any academic credentials; I'm still working towards my undergraduate degree. But, I've never claimed to have academic credentials, so I don't see why you'd bring it up. I've only referenced my studies in regards to racism in Australia. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Do you have any proof to support this conclusion considering all the evidence to date seems to indicate the opposite.
> 
> The threats to Canada have clearly been highlighted.   Osama bin Laden has named us specifically in his messages to his followers in the Islamic Insurgency - writings by experts such as Marc Sageman and Micheal Sheuer have clearly layed out the fact that these men are dedicated and cunning enemies who will do what they say.   We have been fortunate to date to avoid an attack here - most likely because we are not a high payoff target, but in case you didn't notice, we have soldiers in _Dar al-Islam_ which sets us up as a target (like Spain or Britain) by those who adhere to a global Salafist ideology.   Ressam himself considered Canadian targets and the Madrid bombers had information on the Montreal underground in their hardrive.   Montreal was, infact, for quite a period on of the key international nodes of Al Qa'ida (before it moved to London) and a central base for the Mahgrib cell or Al Qa'ida's network.   As well, you'd have to do alot to convince anyone that our favorite family, the Khadrs, was living a quiet and neutral life here while supporting _jihad_ abroad.
> 
> Pull your head out of the sand - everything the enemy has said and done shows us to be a target of oppurtunity.



Canada's no target. You don't know why Montreal information was on the computer, and you cannot claim to know why it was there. I don't know what standards you have for "evidence," but they're obviously incredibly low. No civilized nation would ever indict someone for merely having that kind of information on their computer.

Anything Osama bin Laden says should be taken with a few grains of salt. He's said a lot of things, and he's made a lot of claims. How long has it been since he declared Canada a target? It's been a while, and still, nothing. It's not going to happen.

Remember that I'm saying that terrorists won't attack Canada, and not that there aren't any terrorists in Canada. 



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> And did Canada, the UK, New Zealand, China, India, Belgium, etc do anything?
> And when conflict broke out in 1999, who was the only country to put its hand up and do something, Australia! We were a bees **** away from all out war with Indonesia.



No one did anything. The only reason Australia came to "help" in 1999 was realpolitik.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> Yes 1975 was not a proud moment, but nobody else did anything, and in 1999 we had the most to lose, yet we still were the only ones to stop talking and start doing, the UN originally wanting nothing to do with it, so it was Australia who put together, lead, and contributed over 60% of forces to INTERFET. I am grateful for help from nations like Canada, very grateful, but none of it would have happened unless Australia became active.
> 
> I am not going to have somebody from ANY other country try and dig the stick in to me about Timor.



It's good that Australia did what it did, but I hope you don't think Australia's motivation was to come and save the East Timorese people. If you don't already know about the Timor Gap Treaty, read a little about it.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> Well you most certainly do NOT know more about racism and cultural integration in Australia than me.
> I grew up in one of the most multicultural and ethnically diverse suburbs in the country. I have freinds who are Aussie, English, Macedonian, Albanian, Lebanese, Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, Croation, Filipino, and Serb. When it comes to looking at racism in this country I have truly lived that lesson. On top of this I take a keen interest in looking at the larger picture.
> The   minorities who live where I grew up do not feel it harder than anywhere else. It is a working class neighbourhood, so not the flashiest of areas, but everybody, no matter what race lives comfortably, safely, and peacefully. Immigrants and their children are totally accepted into the community. The only hints of racism were freindly jokes between mates, and we all copped our fair share, all was lighthearted and everybody is proud of their origins.
> I don't know if you have ever been to Australia, i doubt it, and if you were here I doubt you ventured any further than Sydney Harbour. But you clearly have no understanding of Australia's cultural environment.
> You do not know more than racism in this country than me



I've been to Australia, and I'll probably go there on vacation in February if my schedule will allow me to take a week off before or after reading week.
Assuming for a second that you do know more about racism in Australia than I do because you are an Australia and live in a multicultural neighborhood, how could you possibly claim "minorities who live where I grew up do not feel it harder than anywhere else?" Have you lived in a similar neighborhood in Canada, the US, South Africa, etc...? You haven't, so you cannot make that claim. You can say that in your opinion you don't believe racism in Australia to be a problem, but many of your countrymen and many career academics would disagree with you. I'd be inclined to accept their reports published in peer-edited academic journals because such reports are the work of experts who have done almost everything they could to ensure that their results are accurate.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> On another note, you try and accuse me of rhetoric, then in your next paragraph you claim Australia has "Concentration camps".
> Now i didn't want to go off topic, but that is such a serious and innaccurate comment that it must be rebutted.
> We have immigration detention centres for people who enter the country illegally and refuse to leave, just like every other western world country.



Australia's "immigration detention centers" are more similar to concentration camps than they are to what Canada would deem a "detention center."



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> If an American comes here illegally and refuses to take the next available flight home, then he is sent to one.
> Likewise if somebody comes illegally on a dangerous boat, then they are sent there.
> Of course some claim thast they are refugees, they may well be, but they still come here liggeally and must be processed before being allowed in to the nation, they are jumping in the line in front of others who wish to come here.
> If they are refugess then they can claim asylum in ANY one of dozens of nations they pass through before arriving in Indonesia. But they do not. One in Indonesia they pay thousands of American dollars (I could do with that kind of money) each to board an unsafe boat, and cross shark and crocodile infested seas to attempt to enter Australia illegally. By doing this they endanger their children, the RAN has had to save hundreds over the last 5 years from sinking boats, sadly hundreds mroe have drowned.
> 
> Once caught they are offered a flight home, if they say no then they are placed in detention during the processing phase of their application.
> 
> Now we have to control the people who enter our country. Especially with the diseases and unsavoury characters about in the world. If they are true refugess then they should claim refugee status in the first of many safe countries they pass through before taking the irresponsible journey to enter Australia illegally.



They don't want a flight home and they don't want to live in some other country on the way to Australia, they want to live in your socialist welfare state.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> It may be easy for you to judge in Canada. No risk of having thousands of unprocessed people sailing into your waters. Buit it must be done, and frankly i feel no sympathy when they get caught, neither do my ethnic freinds whose parents had to come here legally to escape the wars in former Youguslavia.
> 
> The detention centres are not "concentration camps", they are compounds where illegal immigrants are held whilst our authorities can process their requests. If they (illegals) did things by the book then their would be no need, but instead of applying for UN refugee status where appropriate they came all this way, dangerously, iresspinsibly, illlegally, and wasting australia's taxpayers dollars. They are provided with food, beds, TV, computers, internet, sports grounds and equipment, which is what they are entitled to whilst being processed. They are not exterminated like in a concentration camp.



There's a difference between a concentration camp and a death camp. Necessity is recognized as a legal defense in Australia, so any refugee or asylum seeker could claim he/she had to make it to Australia to avoid death or torture.
It's funny that Australia calls its whole concentration camp system the "Pacific Solution," when the Nazis called their death camp plan the "Final Solution." Actually, that's not funny at all. A few people have sewn their lips shut in your nation's fine detention centers. That's nice.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> Frankly I would like an apology from you regarding you concentration camp claims, they were false, unbackable, serious, and way off the mark and have no place in discussions such as this.
> 
> Sorry everybody else fro straying off topic, but that was a serious claim by ROB, and i was not going to take it.



You'll get no apology from me.
It's nice that you're a patriot and you're trying to defend Australia, but you have to realize that sometimes your country's actions are wrong or immoral. After all, isn't it illegal to possess handcuffs or a sword in your country without a proper permit!?



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> a) You claim to know more then others who live and work and experience the country in which you claim to have expert knowledge.



1. I never claimed to know more about Australia than someone who lives there. I did claim, and continue to cliam, that I know more about racism in Australia than the two Australians who have posted in this thread. This is because I'm repeating the work of experts.
2. I've never cliamed to have expert knowledge.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> b) You have you head stuck so far up your rear you...you get the idea.



I could easily say the same thing about any of you who refuse to recognize my point of view; because I take it you say this because I refuse to recognize yours. Were this board around a few decades ago, I'd expect the same reaction if I were to say that there would never be a war with the USSR.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> c) Your spouting the very same wishy-washy socialist everyone-get-along junk that people on this site hate with a passion, and have already disproved. And;



Socialists might agree with what I say, but for completely different reasons. I'm no socialist; you're probably much more of a socialist than I am. Why should disagreeing with overblown terrorist and American propaganda and media fear mongering make me a socialist?



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> d) Your acting like the typical ivory-tower dwelling rose-tinted goggle wearing student that gives the few of us students who don't talk out of their arse a bad name (well, I do sometimes but usually by mistake).



Because I think terrorists won't attack Canada? Since this thread began, they haven't, so I've been right. I'll continue to be right in this assertion.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No problem, thanks for pointing that out. I was obviously just skimming ROB's post, as I have read all that before, and would have called him on it at the time.
> 
> MOD EDIT: ROB, show us some proof of these "concentration camps" [ do you really know what that means?]or I will start the warning process on you.



Bruce, I hope this proof will suffice. I'll add more at your request.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=concentration%20camp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1262393.stm

By the way, I like your signature. I'll be sure to reference it when the need to do so once again comes up in this thread.



			
				Jungle said:
			
		

> We have the same thing here; but Rob doesn't know this, because he's too busy being right !!
> http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/factsheets/2004/0311ArrestsDetentions-e.html



Wow, thanks for telling me what I know. And to think, all the while I thought we kept our detained illegals in the Four Seasons.
Why not wait for me to reply first, next time? If you're just going to try to attack me, at least try not to make a fool of yourself in the process.


----------



## muskrat89

OK, I think everyone needs to chill the frig out.

Any more personal digs, attacks, barbs, or name calling, and I'm locking this.


----------



## Infanteer

R0B said:
			
		

> Canada's no target. You don't know why Montreal information was on the computer, and you cannot claim to know why it was there. I don't know what standards you have for "evidence," but they're obviously incredibly low. No civilized nation would ever indict someone for merely having that kind of information on their computer.



Well, I'm going to use some deductive skills - you may learn them in your final year of university.   On the hard drive of a man associated with a group that used explosives to attack the Madrid subway system in order to prosecute a terror attack you find plans for a subway system of the city that happens to be the North American hub for Mahgrib Arab Salafists (said man also happens to be a Mahgrib Arab).   Furthermore, said city is in a country which has forces deployed to a couple Islamic countries (although state boundaries are not important to those who believe in the primacy of _Dar al-Islam_ and _Dar al-Harb_) and is actively supporting "apostate regimes"; thus it represents both the "near" and "far" enemies that their Salafist ideology identifies as _jahiliyyah_.   Didn't have to dig too far to reason that one out....

Indictable evidence isn't what we're looking for - this is a key problem the Michael Sheuer was keen to pick up on.   These aren't criminals and this isn't an international game of Bonnie and Clyde.   This is the enemy, and we are at war - recognize it as such and recognize that what we have is actionable intelligence that indicates that targeting for an attack was a probability.   It is important to recognize this both professionally and morally - professionally for the reasons I described earlier (and you made no claim to) and morally to ensure that Canada doesn't ignore a movement that is hostile to its interests and prosperity.   

Besides, all this stuff is tip of the iceberg stuff that the media and academia gets their hands on - you criticize our leadership and national security establishments for fear-mongering and yet you have no access "below the iceberg" to information that they deal with everyday.   How can make any definitive statement like "it will never happen" when you have no claim to any authoritative or professional experience on the subject matter what so ever?



> Anything Osama bin Laden says should be taken with a few grains of salt. He's said a lot of things, and he's made a lot of claims. How long has it been since he declared Canada a target? It's been a while, and still, nothing. It's not going to happen.



Why should we take what he says with a few grains of salt?   He lashes against the Saudi monarchy for trying to muzzle him and now the kingdom is rife with internal conflict (what a Foreign Affairs article aptly deemed the schizophrenic state).   He issued his _Fatwa_ in 1998 and sure enough the attacks on the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and the USS Cole occured.   When he felt his _fatwa_ was ignored, he issued the proclamation of greater bloodshed, and we saw September 11.   When Western forces invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, he threatened that invading forces (yes, that means Canada as well) would get wrath in return for the Muslims that died as a result of the invasions.   Sure enough, we see attacks in Turkey, Madrid, and London.   Now, we see his right hand man Zawahiri claiming that the next attack will be greater than anything we have yet to see (implying WMD) - many academic articles in journals such as Foreign Affairs tend to indicate that this threat is real.   The Islamic extremists that compose the global Insurgency are dedicated foes, and an examination of their ideology shows that we are very much an enemy to global Salafism.

Bin Laden hasn't said anything lately - there is a host of reasons and possibilites as to why.   But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take what has been said lightly - he has delivered to date.   As well, it is important to remember that this foe is a ideological network - bin Laden is the banner, not the movement.   He effectively forms the opinions of the global salafist network and of many millions of neutral muslims (see the Pew Center for the data) - the fact that our country has been proclaimed on multiple occasions, directly and indirectly, to be hostile to the interests of their movement should be enough to warn us of the probability of an offensive attack on our soil.



> Remember that I'm saying that terrorists won't attack Canada, and not that there aren't any terrorists in Canada.



I can't understand where you find the logic to seperate these two points.   "I'm not saying that the Sword of Damocles is not over our head, I'm just saying that the rope won't snap".



> Australia's "immigration detention centers" are more similar to concentration camps than they are to what Canada would deem a "detention center."



Have you been to a concentration camp or to Australia's detention centers?   I've been to a concentration camp (along with a mass grave or two) and I can tell you that the one I saw bears no resemblence to what the Aussies seem to be running.

The link you provided shows that the complaint is the heat (isn't it always hot in Australia?) and the lack of telephones.   Other than that, there is those rumours of abuse that opponents like to fling around but are usually baseless.   You're going to have to do better than a few internet news articles to prove that you are coming from a position of authority when discussing these detention centers.


----------



## cobbler

> They don't want a flight home and they don't want to live in some other country on the way to Australia, they want to live in your socialist welfare state.



Beggers cannot be choosers. IF they are true refugees then they are coming here to escape danger in their own country. Refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, if their situation is truly that dire then they should grab on to the first oppurtunity they can.



> There's a difference between a concentration camp and a death camp. Necessity is recognized as a legal defense in Australia, so any refugee or asylum seeker could claim he/she had to make it to Australia to avoid death or torture.
> It's funny that Australia calls its whole concentration camp system the "Pacific Solution," when the Nazis called their death camp plan the "Final Solution." Actually, that's not funny at all. A few people have sewn their lips shut in your nation's fine detention centers. That's nice.



Yes but they could have avoided death or torture in any one of a dozen countries that they pass through. And they were safe in Indonesia while they waited for moneths to get aboard a human trafficing boat that they pay $thousands to get on.

There you go again comparing Australia to Nazi Germany.

The main complaint about the centres is the heat, well whoopdedooo, welcome to Australia mate. As for sewing their mouths shut, that is no fault of ours, and these are people who 
a) sew their own mouths shut
b) burn down buildings in protest
c) place their children on unseaworthy, overcrowded, rtotting wooden boats for an illegal sea crossing over shark infested waters
 Are these really people we want to enter the country freely and unchecked?

The majority of refugees and asylum seekers manage to come here legally. Why should these illegal immigrants be allowed in just because they have money and are willing to intimidate us in protest.
They should not be able to buy their way into Australia, there is a queue, jumping it is unfair on the less fortunate, and is not the Australian way.

They know the immigration process upon embarking their illegal, costly, and dangerous campaign, they should not complain when they arrive and are held in detention.

The detention centres are adequate, do they expect to be put up in the Hilton on the Park? They have all the services they needto survive whilst their illegal bid for residency is processed. If they don't like the heat, tough, they should have gone for Europe, or Canada.




> Have you lived in a similar neighborhood in Canada, the US, South Africa, etc...? You haven't, so you cannot make that claim. You can say that in your opinion you don't believe racism in Australia to be a problem, but many of your countrymen and many career academics would disagree with you. I'd be inclined to accept their reports published in peer-edited academic journals because such reports are the work of experts who have done almost everything they could to ensure that their results are accurate.



Well you must be giving immigrants free mansions in Canada because life here is not too shabby. I have seen similar neighbourhoods in America, and it was much worse there. You mention South Africa, well excuse me for saying problems they have faced regarding race are much, much worse, i think that would be obvious to all. Never been to Canada, won't comment.
These acamdeics wouldn't have some sort of bias would they? I am not a fan of these "academic credentials", statistics and studies can be manipulated to support any contention.

I would say in Australia the only city that has neighbourhoods with any major race, money problems would be Sydney. But that is not a barometre of the wholse country (regardless of how the world sees it, Australia does not revolve around Sydney), and most of those problems relate more to Aboriginals, and they certainly are not immigrants.


----------



## 1feral1

R0B said:
			
		

> The fact that I'm a university student shouldn't even figure into this debate. What should matter is the fact that I'm going by information your beloved sword-banning government regards as authoritative.
> 
> I'd like to give you a lesson in Canadian/American slang but I figure you're the type of hypocrite who would ban me for it.



Swords have not been banned in Australia, and its only ONE state, the state of New South Wales that is ONLY looking into this. Although I live in Queensland, I have two swords, both Japanese Ww2 battlefield pick-ups. One officer and one NCO Shin-gun-to types. So I know, and understand the laws, WRT firearms (I am licensed), and edged weapons (no license required). So, your information is again wrong.

As for US/Canadian slang, I was born in Saskatoon, and spent the first 35 years of my life in Canada, thats 15 yrs longer than you have been alive! So don't go giving me any lessons.

Cold beers,

Wes


----------



## R0B

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, I'm going to use some deductive skills - you may learn them in your final year of university.  On the hard drive of a man associated with a group that used explosives to attack the Madrid subway system in order to prosecute a terror attack you find plans for a subway system of the city that happens to be the North American hub for Mahgrib Arab Salafists (said man also happens to be a Mahgrib Arab).  Furthermore, said city is in a country which has forces deployed to a couple Islamic countries (although state boundaries are not important to those who believe in the primacy of _Dar al-Islam_ and _Dar al-Harb_) and is actively supporting "apostate regimes"; thus it represents both the "near" and "far" enemies that their Salafist ideology identifies as _jahiliyyah_.  Didn't have to dig too far to reason that one out....



That's not reason, you're just guessing. Anyone could just as easily come up with an opposite conclusion. The deductive reasoning you've used above doesn't meet the standards of Canadian justice; it doesn't even come close.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Indictable evidence isn't what we're looking for - this is a key problem the Michael Sheuer was keen to pick up on.  These aren't criminals and this isn't an international game of Bonnie and Clyde.  This is the enemy, and we are at war - recognize it as such and recognize that what we have is actionable intelligence that indicates that targeting for an attack was a probability.  It is important to recognize this both professionally and morally - professionally for the reasons I described earlier (and you made no claim to) and morally to ensure that Canada doesn't ignore a movement that is hostile to its interests and prosperity.



Acting on intelligence based on circumstantial evidence is nothing more than an exercise in jumping to conclusions. Take the example of the Montreal subway plans. Should it be investigated further? Yes. Should security be increased? Sure. Is it evidence of a planned attack on Montreal? By no means.
Finding plans for the Montreal subway system on a terrorist's computer doesn't indicate that an attack is probably. You're jumping to conclusions, and in doing so, ignoring what Canada has deemed to be justice.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Besides, all this stuff is tip of the iceberg stuff that the media and academia gets their hands on - you criticize our leadership and national security establishments for fear-mongering and yet you have no access "below the iceberg" to information that they deal with everyday.  How can make any definitive statement like "it will never happen" when you have no claim to any authoritative or professional experience on the subject matter what so ever?



I'm not really criticizing Canada, because our leadership has made frequent comments to suggest that Canada is not at any significant risk, which is the best they can say while avoiding any certain terms for liability purposes. It's the media who's doing a lot of the work to sell their infotainment, and it's the United States who's encouraging most of it. I can criticize our leadership and national security because we live in a liberal democracy where I'm afforded a certain degree of certain freedoms, and I'm only exercising them. I don't know what goes on below the iceberg, and you probably don't either, unless you work for CSIS or the CIA or something. I don't even know if "below the iceberg" exists, and you likely don't either.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Why should we take what he says with a few grains of salt?  He lashes against the Saudi monarchy for trying to muzzle him and now the kingdom is rife with internal conflict (what a Foreign Affairs article aptly deemed the schizophrenic state).  He issued his _Fatwa_ in 1998 and sure enough the attacks on the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and the USS Cole occured.  When he felt his _fatwa_ was ignored, he issued the proclamation of greater bloodshed, and we saw September 11.  When Western forces invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, he threatened that invading forces (yes, that means Canada as well) would get wrath in return for the Muslims that died as a result of the invasions.  Sure enough, we see attacks in Turkey, Madrid, and London.  Now, we see his right hand man Zawahiri claiming that the next attack will be greater than anything we have yet to see (implying WMD) - many academic articles in journals such as Foreign Affairs tend to indicate that this threat is real.  The Islamic extremists that compose the global Insurgency are dedicated foes, and an examination of their ideology shows that we are very much an enemy to global Salafism.



We should take what Osama bin Laden says with a grain of salt first because his statements are clearly made for propaganda purposes, and second, because he doesn't keep his promises. Just look at how many of his threats have panned out, and how they seldom meet his boastful calls to action.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Bin Laden hasn't said anything lately - there is a host of reasons and possibilites as to why.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take what has been said lightly - he has delivered to date.  As well, it is important to remember that this foe is a ideological network - bin Laden is the banner, not the movement.  He effectively forms the opinions of the global salafist network and of many millions of neutral muslims (see the Pew Center for the data) - the fact that our country has been proclaimed on multiple occasions, directly and indirectly, to be hostile to the interests of their movement should be enough to warn us of the probability of an offensive attack on our soil.



Virtually every country is hostile to their interests, the United States most of all, and any terrorist in Canada could almost just as easily attack the United States. That fact alone greatly reduces the significance of the terrorist threat to Canada. Terrorists don't attack to kill westerners, they do so to meet political ends, and if Madrid bombings have proven anything, they calculate when and where to best attack. Every country is a "target," but Canada is not a prime target, it doesn't have to fear an attack.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I can't understand where you find the logic to seperate these two points.  "I'm not saying that the Sword of Damocles is not over our head, I'm just saying that the rope won't snap".



The demarcation point is the fact that unless they're attacking Canada, they're not attacking Canada.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Have you been to a concentration camp or to Australia's detention centers?  I've been to a concentration camp (along with a mass grave or two) and I can tell you that the one I saw bears no resemblence to what the Aussies seem to be running.



I've been to the site of a former Nazi death camp, and I've never been to an Australian "detention center."

You'll find a lot of differences between a 1942 VW Beetle and a 2005 Holden Monaro, but that doesn't mean they're not both cars.

A concentration camp is defined as: A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. By this definition, the Australian "detention camps" are clearly concentration camps.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> The link you provided shows that the complaint is the heat (isn't it always hot in Australia?) and the lack of telephones.  Other than that, there is those rumours of abuse that opponents like to fling around but are usually baseless.  You're going to have to do better than a few internet news articles to prove that you are coming from a position of authority when discussing these detention centers.



I found that internet article using Google, but the information on which I base my claims comes from peer-edited academic journals. Even if I were to cite them (and I can't off the top of my head, I'd have to go looking) you'd have no way of verifying what I say because I doubt you have access to them, given that they're not readily available.

Australia is a hot country, but these detention centers are mostly, if not exclusively located in Australia's northern wastelands, which are closer to the equator than the more temperate South. If you just take a look at pictures of these detention centers, you're sure to agree that they're unacceptable by western standards.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> Beggers cannot be choosers. IF they are true refugees then they are coming here to escape danger in their own country. Refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, if their situation is truly that dire then they should grab on to the first oppurtunity they can.



Well, if they actually had to flee their country, they obviously can't accept a flight back, and refugee laws are different in countries on the way to Australia than they are in Australia. A lot of these refugees try to get in illegally because they can't make it in legally, so they're left with no other option.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> Yes but they could have avoided death or torture in any one of a dozen countries that they pass through. And they were safe in Indonesia while they waited for moneths to get aboard a human trafficing boat that they pay $thousands to get on.



You can't blame people for seeing the best possible life for themselves, and for people without what it takes to succeed in a capitalist country, a socialist welfare state like Australia among the best options one could have. If they're trying to escape poverty, on the other hand, moving from one poor country to another isn't going to do much.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> There you go again comparing Australia to Nazi Germany.



Not really, but I'm honestly disgusted that these similarities would even allow for such a comparison. Canada once maintained concentration camps, but thankfully, no longer.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> The main complaint about the centres is the heat, well whoopdedooo, welcome to Australia mate. As for sewing their mouths shut, that is no fault of ours, and these are people who
> a) sew their own mouths shut
> b) burn down buildings in protest
> c) place their children on unseaworthy, overcrowded, rtotting wooden boats for an illegal sea crossing over shark infested waters
> Are these really people we want to enter the country freely and unchecked?



No, you definitely don't want these people in Australia. They're only looking for the quickest way to start collecting welfare or work without any intention of ever paying taxes. That doesn't change the fact that you keep them in concentration camps.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> The majority of refugees and asylum seekers manage to come here legally. Why should these illegal immigrants be allowed in just because they have money and are willing to intimidate us in protest.
> They should not be able to buy their way into Australia, there is a queue, jumping it is unfair on the less fortunate, and is not the Australian way.




I don't know what the numbers are, but they're trying to make it as soon as possible because they're in distress.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> They know the immigration process upon embarking their illegal, costly, and dangerous campaign, they should not complain when they arrive and are held in detention.
> 
> The detention centres are adequate, do they expect to be put up in the Hilton on the Park? They have all the services they needto survive whilst their illegal bid for residency is processed. If they don't like the heat, tough, they should have gone for Europe, or Canada.



Whether or not they're aware of Australia's immigration process is probably best judged on an individual basis. The detention centers serve their purpose, and I don't debate that, but they're concentration camps, quite literally, and the conditions in which inmates are kept have largely been deemed inhumane by western nations.
It's harder to get set up in Europe than it is in Australia, and because you'd have to travel though a number of organized countries, it's harder to get there. It's very difficult to get to Canada, considering that these people probably don't have passports.
This is actually one reason, I suppose, why Australia gets some of the world's least desirable refugees.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> Well you must be giving immigrants free mansions in Canada because life here is not too shabby. I have seen similar neighbourhoods in America, and it was much worse there. You mention South Africa, well excuse me for saying problems they have faced regarding race are much, much worse, i think that would be obvious to all. Never been to Canada, won't comment.



In mentioning South Africa, I made no attempt to suggest that Australia's racism situation is more severe. Illegal immigrants are treated by Canada far better than they are by Australia.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> These acamdeics wouldn't have some sort of bias would they? I am not a fan of these "academic credentials", statistics and studies can be manipulated to support any contention.



I hope you don't dismiss their contentions just because they have academic credentials. I agree of course that statistics and studies can be manipulated to support any contention. That is why these academics post their work in journals where they are reviewed by their peers. If anyone is able to poke a hole in their studies, they do so. A lot of studies out there are complete crap, you need only visit a gun-control website to see hundreds of them, but there's a big difference between that kind of "study" and actual studies undertaken by serious academics.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> I would say in Australia the only city that has neighbourhoods with any major race, money problems would be Sydney. But that is not a barometre of the wholse country (regardless of how the world sees it, Australia does not revolve around Sydney), and most of those problems relate more to Aboriginals, and they certainly are not immigrants.



I'm not really talking about racial problems Australia experiences with ethnic criminal gangs or the urban poor, but rather than more industrious immigrants feel discriminated against more in Australia than they do in elsewhere among western countries.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Swords have not been banned in Australia, and its only ONE state, the state of New South Wales that is ONLY looking into this. Although I live in Queensland, I have two swords, both Japanese Ww2 battlefield pick-ups. One officer and one NCO Shin-gun-to types. So I know, and understand the laws, WRT firearms (I am licensed), and edged weapons (no license required). So, your information is again wrong.



I realize that swords haven't been banned in Australia; that was just a comical remark about your nation's government. It's just a matter of time before spoons are illegal in the commonwealth nations.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> As for US/Canadian slang, I was born in Saskatoon, and spent the first 35 years of my life in Canada, thats 15 yrs longer than you have been alive! So don't go giving me any lessons.
> 
> Cold beers,
> 
> Wes



You've got me there.


----------



## Infanteer

R0B said:
			
		

> That's not reason, you're just guessing. Anyone could just as easily come up with an opposite conclusion. The deductive reasoning you've used above doesn't meet the standards of Canadian justice; it doesn't even come close.
> 
> Acting on intelligence based on circumstantial evidence is nothing more than an exercise in jumping to conclusions. Take the example of the Montreal subway plans. Should it be investigated further? Yes. Should security be increased? Sure. Is it evidence of a planned attack on Montreal? By no means.
> Finding plans for the Montreal subway system on a terrorist's computer doesn't indicate that an attack is probably. You're jumping to conclusions, and in doing so, ignoring what Canada has deemed to be justice.



Well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then there is probably a good chance it is a duck - it's not a guess, it's a credible hypothesis made off of various academic, government, and media sources that highlight the psychology, motivation, tactics, goals of groups like the one discussed.   You're weak response offers nothing for rebuttal except that "it can't be proved in a court of law".   If you are not going to refute it with anything but generalizations based upon slothful induction, then quit wasting Mike's bandwidth.

As well, nobody is arguing about the danger of a specfic attack (ie: "the terrorists will attack CN tower at noon on wednesday with an IED...."); what is being pointed out is that there is an good deal of evidence that indicates that Canada is indeed a target and that there is a reasonable chance to believe that the enemy will attempt to kill Canadians in their home cities.   You continually dismiss both specific attack and general threat with your blanket statements of "it won't happen" and "we are not a target", and you continually fail to support that claim with any real evidence what so ever.   Put up or shut up.

Finally, you're off base with the notion of court admissable chain-of-evidence; this is the enemy, not a criminal.   We are looking to defend ourselves from attack, not find guilt of a felony.   Michael Sheuer (an SME and the source for my initial analogy) highlights this problem well:

_"Instead of "painting the map red" as did Britain's Imperial elite, America's elites use U.S. law - to paraphrase the inane Woodrow Wilson - to "teach the world to make good laws."   A noted Harvard professor spoke for those eager to wage gavel-powered war, arguing that "[t]he most powerful weapon against terrorists is our commitment to the rule of law.   We must use courts to make clear that terrorism is a criminal act, not jihad, not heroism, not holy war.   And then we must no make martyrs of murderers."   The professor does not say who the courts would convince that jihad is a crime - Americans maybe, Muslims never - and also does not say how courts will stop attacks.   Helpfully, however, a colleague of hers has said, "If alleged terrorists are planning future attacks, these attacks can be uncovered and thwarted while law enforcement officials gather evidence."   You see, there is nothing to it.

The legalistic lens America uses to deal with the world causes confusion about what we are doing, and what we need to do, against bin Laden: Are we waging a war, or hot on the trail of Thelma and Louise?   As I said, we are predisposed by two-plus centuries of history to look for law-enforcement solutions to problems.   In bin Laden's case, this predisposition is encouraged by our leaders' insistence that bin Laden means to destroy our freedom, liberties, and democracy.   If that is what bin Laden intends, it is only natural we seek protection from the FBI and the Justice Department.   Here is more evidence of the danger that lies in our elites' inability or refusal to recognize bin Laden's goals and to respond effectively, rather than in ways they - and we - find intellectually comfortable.   "Five years of investigation and trials and appeals, as after the first World Trade Center [attack in 1993], deter nobody," William Safire wrote on 12 September 2001, and yet the chase-and-arrest technique still holds sway, only now the world's most powerful military is packing the handcuffs."

Michael Sheuer, Imperial Hubris pp: 185-186_



> I'm not really criticizing Canada, because our leadership has made frequent comments to suggest that Canada is not at any significant risk, which is the best they can say while avoiding any certain terms for liability purposes. It's the media who's doing a lot of the work to sell their infotainment, and it's the United States who's encouraging most of it. I can criticize our leadership and national security because we live in a liberal democracy where I'm afforded a certain degree of certain freedoms, and I'm only exercising them. I don't know what goes on below the iceberg, and you probably don't either, unless you work for CSIS or the CIA or something. I don't even know if "below the iceberg" exists, and you likely don't either.



Oh spare me with the "freedom of speech" act - this site demands an equal responsiblity to substantiate the bandwidth you are taking up.   If you're not up to this, you are a troll or a fool and will be shown the door quickly.   I have dealt with these people on a professional level before (as have many of the other soldiers on this board who've bumped into Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and a litany of other organzations in their travels).   I can guarantee you that there is alot "below the iceberg" that you, sitting in the dormroom, have not the foggiest about.

Both the Defence Policy Statement and the Chief of Defence Staff's Transformation Plan clearly highlight the implicit threat that militant Islamists (among others) make to the security of Canada.   Obviously, according to your logic, they are out to lunch - why, providing they have much more to go on than you, would they come to these conclusions in central policy documents?   Guess they should have consulted the UofT class of 2007 for advice.... :.



> We should take what Osama bin Laden says with a grain of salt first because his statements are clearly made for propaganda purposes, and second, because he doesn't keep his promises. Just look at how many of his threats have panned out, and how they seldom meet his boastful calls to action.



Is your computer just stuck on repeat or are you just a natural troll?     :   

I've given a broad overview of his actions over the last 15 years to prove that his statement is more than propaganda and his speech belies his intent.   The proof is in the pudding in the fact that Al Qa'ida still conducts operations today and attacks those who it states it will target.

You repeat your line and again fail to provide anything substantive to back your claim.   Put up or shut up.



> Virtually every country is hostile to their interests, the United States most of all, and any terrorist in Canada could almost just as easily attack the United States. That fact alone greatly reduces the significance of the terrorist threat to Canada. Terrorists don't attack to kill westerners, they do so to meet political ends, and if Madrid bombings have proven anything, they calculate when and where to best attack. Every country is a "target," but Canada is not a prime target, it doesn't have to fear an attack.
> 
> The demarcation point is the fact that unless they're attacking Canada, they're not attacking Canada.



The fact that you seem to have a total inability to understand the term "threat" and to gauge it based on the people we are dealing with, what they say and do, and what their goals are confirms my suspicions that you are talking through your hat.   I'm sure you've got a cousin in Madrid who was pointing at the United States and saying "prime target" and "no fear" on 10 March 2004.   Enjoy living in your threat free world - folks with mud on the boots got a job to do and we appreciate your support.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Rob just to jump in here for a few seconds, I'd like to add that you keep referring to proof required in a justice system as some sort of measuring tape. We are at WAR with these terrorists. In WAR I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to attack my enemy, I need information gathered from a number of sources both electronic and human which then get fed up the chain of command to be deciphered by all the Int types. If they decide it is a credible target (doesn't have to be beyond a reasonable doubt) then an operation is spun up and we go out to try and KILL the enemy. I am really not interested in arresting them or ensuring that their rights are not violated, I am trying to KILL them. There is a huge difference which you were ignoring.
You seem like a fairly intelligent sort but you don't seem to want to listen to anyone except your profs and their writings. Also your comment asking about someones major could be construed as you potentially dismissing anyones thoughts based on their education alone. I don't have a university degree but I am over twice your age (I have a daughter older than you! ) with far more experience in the real world. Hopefully you will finish your degree(s) and someday join us in the real world where things aren't quite as clear cut as the academic world. But I doubt that will happen as you seem to prefer being a pain and disagreeing or dismissing anything contrary to your pre-conceived ideas. 
I honestly hope that you are correct in the idea that Canada will never be attacked but I think I would rather see us prepare for an attack that never occurs, then be attacked and not be prepared!
Have a nice day!


----------



## George Wallace

R0B said:
			
		

> That's not reason, you're just guessing. Anyone could just as easily come up with an opposite conclusion. The deductive reasoning you've used above doesn't meet the standards of Canadian justice; it doesn't even come close.


And you are not just guessing with your surmised conclusions?





			
				R0B said:
			
		

> Acting on intelligence based on circumstantial evidence is nothing more than an exercise in jumping to conclusions. Take the example of the Montreal subway plans. Should it be investigated further? Yes. Should security be increased? Sure. Is it evidence of a planned attack on Montreal? By no means.
> Finding plans for the Montreal subway system on a terrorist's computer doesn't indicate that an attack is probably. You're jumping to conclusions, and in doing so, ignoring what Canada has deemed to be justice.


Obviously you have no idea how the world works.   This is intelligence gathered and it does point to a serious threat.


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> I'm not really criticizing Canada, because our leadership has made frequent comments to ........... I don't know what goes on below the iceberg, and you probably don't either, unless you work for CSIS or the CIA or something. I don't even know if "below the iceberg" exists, and you likely don't either.


Lucky for you, many of us are very familiar with what lies below the iceberg.


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> The demarcation point is the fact that unless they're attacking Canada, they're not attacking Canada.


Naive


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> I found that internet article using Google, but the information on which I base my claims comes from peer-edited academic journals. Even if I were to cite them (and I can't off the top of my head, I'd have to go looking) you'd have no way of verifying what I say because I doubt you have access to them, given that they're not readily available.


I question this and will therefore call your claim inadmissible as any form of evidence supporting your position.   Any info that you, at your current position as a student, have sole access to, that is not Open Source, must be discounted as mere hearsay.


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> I hope you don't dismiss their contentions just because they have academic credentials. I agree of course that statistics and studies can be manipulated to support any contention. That is why these academics post their work in journals where they are reviewed by their peers. If anyone is able to poke a hole in their studies, they do so. A lot of studies out there are complete crap, you need only visit a gun-control website to see hundreds of them, but there's a big difference between that kind of 'study' and actual studies undertaken by serious academics.


You seem to quick to dismiss contrary views to your own, making you a very biased researcher who will never garner any credibility amongst your peers.   Dismissing evidence that is not in support of your argument disqualifies its as being credible.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

R0B said:
			
		

> What's wrong with UofT?
> You honestly think that Canada is going to get attacked by terrorists? What's your major?



I think you answered your own question, yes I do asshat, and one that's better then yours, clearly. :nana: 

(Sorry I just had to respond to that.)

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...


----------



## cobbler

> Australia is a hot country, but these detention centers are mostly, if not exclusively located in Australia's northern wastelands, which are closer to the equator than the more temperate South. If you just take a look at pictures of these detention centers, you're sure to agree that they're unacceptable by western standards.



Mostly? If not exclusively?

Well until recently the largest, and most troub;ed detention centre in Aus was Woomera, in the state of SOUTH Australia. Most of that state is desert. 
Another centre is Maribynong (near where i grew up) in the southernmost mainland city of Melbourne.

These pictures could not possibly be taken by activist who want to paint them in a bad light, or by the media after a story.

The immigrants burn down buildings often, we cannot build them a 5 start hotel only to have it set alight.

The standards of these centres is much better than you would find and a school (summer) camp. They have TV, internet, sports fields, beds, food, medical care. They have everything they need, and if their stories are true (and they are) then the detention centres are much, much better than what they have ever lived in before. And certainly adequate to support them relatively comfortably whilst they are processed.


----------



## R0B

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then there is probably a good chance it is a duck - it's not a guess, it's a credible hypothesis made off of various academic, government, and media sources that highlight the psychology, motivation, tactics, goals of groups like the one discussed.   You're weak response offers nothing for rebuttal except that "it can't be proved in a court of law".   If you are not going to refute it with anything but generalizations based upon slothful induction, then quit wasting Mike's bandwidth.



Don't automatically assume that he was going to attack Montreal just because he had their subway's blueprints or something. It's worth investigating and it's worth increasing security, but it's far from any acceptable level of proof. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> As well, nobody is arguing about the danger of a specfic attack (ie: "the terrorists will attack CN tower at noon on wednesday with an IED...."); what is being pointed out is that there is an good deal of evidence that indicates that Canada is indeed a target and that there is a reasonable chance to believe that the enemy will attempt to kill Canadians in their home cities.   You continually dismiss both specific attack and general threat with your blanket statements of "it won't happen" and "we are not a target", and you continually fail to support that claim with any real evidence what so ever.   Put up or shut up.



Finding a schematic on a suspected terrorist's computer and Osama bin Laden's threats don't constitute a "good deal of evidence." At most, it's weak evidence. Whatever evidence you accuse me of lacking I lack because there is too little evidence to suggest a terrorist attack is imminent. That alone should be considered evidence for the unlikelihood of an attack.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Finally, you're off base with the notion of court admissable chain-of-evidence; this is the enemy, not a criminal.   We are looking to defend ourselves from attack, not find guilt of a felony.   Michael Sheuer (an SME and the source for my initial analogy) highlights this problem well:
> 
> _"Instead of "painting the map red" as did Britain's Imperial elite, America's elites use U.S. law - to paraphrase the inane Woodrow Wilson - to "teach the world to make good laws."   A noted Harvard professor spoke for those eager to wage gavel-powered war, arguing that "[t]he most powerful weapon against terrorists is our commitment to the rule of law.   We must use courts to make clear that terrorism is a criminal act, not jihad, not heroism, not holy war.   And then we must no make martyrs of murderers."   The professor does not say who the courts would convince that jihad is a crime - Americans maybe, Muslims never - and also does not say how courts will stop attacks.   Helpfully, however, a colleague of hers has said, "If alleged terrorists are planning future attacks, these attacks can be uncovered and thwarted while law enforcement officials gather evidence."   You see, there is nothing to it.
> 
> The legalistic lens America uses to deal with the world causes confusion about what we are doing, and what we need to do, against bin Laden: Are we waging a war, or hot on the trail of Thelma and Louise?   As I said, we are predisposed by two-plus centuries of history to look for law-enforcement solutions to problems.   In bin Laden's case, this predisposition is encouraged by our leaders' insistence that bin Laden means to destroy our freedom, liberties, and democracy.   If that is what bin Laden intends, it is only natural we seek protection from the FBI and the Justice Department.   Here is more evidence of the danger that lies in our elites' inability or refusal to recognize bin Laden's goals and to respond effectively, rather than in ways they - and we - find intellectually comfortable.   "Five years of investigation and trials and appeals, as after the first World Trade Center [attack in 1993], deter nobody," William Safire wrote on 12 September 2001, and yet the chase-and-arrest technique still holds sway, only now the world's most powerful military is packing the handcuffs."
> 
> Michael Sheuer, Imperial Hubris pp: 185-186_



Democratic western nations were founded in part by the belief of the supremacy of law. It's ridiculous to suggest that we should just abandon the law to deal with the state's enemies, not simply because criminals are also enemies of the state, but because this is the mark of unjust regimes. Not only is it cowardly to forego the law and liberty in hopes of achieving greater security, it's wrong, according to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What would you propose to do with a suspected terrorist found to have plans for say, the CN tower on his laptop? Would you detain him and charge him with a crime you suspect he will commit? And when will this end? Both the Canadians and the Americans interred their own citizens in concentration camps during the Second World War. That was done because some people thought it was more important to protect the nation than it was to protect its people. A major argument against private firearms ownership is fairly similar, that's it contrary to the good of the public. I'd rather place myself at risk than I would surrender my rights for what apparently would be more safety, especially in this case, where the threat of harm is negligible.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Oh spare me with the "freedom of speech" act - this site demands an equal responsiblity to substantiate the bandwidth you are taking up.   If you're not up to this, you are a troll or a fool and will be shown the door quickly.   I have dealt with these people on a professional level before (as have many of the other soldiers on this board who've bumped into Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and a litany of other organzations in their travels).   I can guarantee you that there is alot "below the iceberg" that you, sitting in the dormroom, have not the foggiest about.



I can only comment on what I know, which is based on what I've been told. The government hasn't mentioned that they've foiled any terrorist attempts. Had they done so, they'd almost certainly gloat about it.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Both the Defence Policy Statement and the Chief of Defence Staff's Transformation Plan clearly highlight the implicit threat that militant Islamists (among others) make to the security of Canada.   Obviously, according to your logic, they are out to lunch - why, providing they have much more to go on than you, would they come to these conclusions in central policy documents?   Guess they should have consulted the UofT class of 2007 for advice.... :.



They have to account for these kinds of things so that they don't end up looking incompetent if something were to happen. Plus, they likely have their own interest in mind, and are looking to secure increased funding in light of one threat or another.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is your computer just stuck on repeat or are you just a natural troll?     :
> 
> I've given a broad overview of his actions over the last 15 years to prove that his statement is more than propaganda and his speech belies his intent.   The proof is in the pudding in the fact that Al Qa'ida still conducts operations today and attacks those who it states it will target.
> 
> You repeat your line and again fail to provide anything substantive to back your claim.   Put up or shut up.



It attacks most states it targets. Canada and Italy haven't been attacked, despite being implicitly singled out by Al Qaeda. At best you could say he does some of the time.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> The fact that you seem to have a total inability to understand the term "threat" and to gauge it based on the people we are dealing with, what they say and do, and what their goals are confirms my suspicions that you are talking through your hat.   I'm sure you've got a cousin in Madrid who was pointing at the United States and saying "prime target" and "no fear" on 10 March 2004.   Enjoy living in your threat free world - folks with mud on the boots got a job to do and we appreciate your support.



I support the Canadian Forces and what it does, that doesn't change the fact that I believe Canada won't be attacked by terrorists.



			
				2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Rob just to jump in here for a few seconds, I'd like to add that you keep referring to proof required in a justice system as some sort of measuring tape. We are at WAR with these terrorists. In WAR I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to attack my enemy, I need information gathered from a number of sources both electronic and human which then get fed up the chain of command to be deciphered by all the Int types. If they decide it is a credible target (doesn't have to be beyond a reasonable doubt) then an operation is spun up and we go out to try and KILL the enemy. I am really not interested in arresting them or ensuring that their rights are not violated, I am trying to KILL them. There is a huge difference which you were ignoring.
> You seem like a fairly intelligent sort but you don't seem to want to listen to anyone except your profs and their writings. Also your comment asking about someones major could be construed as you potentially dismissing anyones thoughts based on their education alone. I don't have a university degree but I am over twice your age (I have a daughter older than you! ) with far more experience in the real world. Hopefully you will finish your degree(s) and someday join us in the real world where things aren't quite as clear cut as the academic world. But I doubt that will happen as you seem to prefer being a pain and disagreeing or dismissing anything contrary to your pre-conceived ideas.
> I honestly hope that you are correct in the idea that Canada will never be attacked but I think I would rather see us prepare for an attack that never occurs, then be attacked and not be prepared!
> Have a nice day!



I think we should prepare for an attack, just like I noted earlier, I wear seatbelts even though I doubt I'll be involved in an accident.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt isn't needed for war; President Bush has already proven that to us. This entire argument about proof stems from the fact that I don't think anyone can consider Montreal plans on a suspected Madrid bomber as proof of an attack on Montreal. And I don't think it should. It grounds for investigation, but it's not proof of an intended attack on Montreal. It suggests the possibility of an attack, but that's all.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> And you are not just guessing with your surmised conclusions?



I obviously can't predict the future.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Obviously you have no idea how the world works. This is intelligence gathered and it does point to a serious threat.



I hope you're not referring to the Montreal thing; all that constitutes is the possibility of a serious threat.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Lucky for you, many of us are very familiar with what lies below the iceberg.



You might be, but more than likely you just think you know what's going on.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Naive



Unless they attack Canada, they're not attacking Canada. Being a terrorist in Canada doesn't in itself constitute an attack on our nation.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I question this and will therefore call your claim inadmissible as any form of evidence supporting your position.   Any info that you, at your current position as a student, have sole access to, that is not Open Source, must be discounted as mere hearsay.



They're available to all people, but academic journals are typically only carried by research university libraries, due to their outrageous subscription costs, and most university libraries are not open to the public.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You seem to quick to dismiss contrary views to your own, making you a very biased researcher who will never garner any credibility amongst your peers.   Dismissing evidence that is not in support of your argument disqualifies its as being credible.



Keep in mind that my "peers" mostly agree with me. I dismiss evidence based on its value as evidence, rather than its objectivity. If Osama bin Laden blew up the Parliament tomorrow, I wouldn't try to dismiss it, I'd accept it. Trouble is, your standards for evidence are far lower than mine.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Why do you keep using the word 'concentration camp'? Literally, yes the Australian centres could be considered that. Just like lots of other things could be taken different ways when interpreted literally.



Because it is quite literally a concentration camp and "detention center" is just a euphemism.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> However, Concentration Camp is, in the popular sense of the word, describing a place where people are brought to to die or are 'concentrated' to be removed from society premanently. The Australians call them Detention Centres because thats what they are. A place to detain somone until there status can be decided upon. The Australians are not being racist by doing this, they are simply protecting themselves.



I agree, but that doesn't mean they're not concentration camps in the literal sense of the word. The camps where Japanese-Americans were kept during the Second World War are also referred to as concentration camps, despite the fact that the Americans had no intention of exterminating them. It's just a term; don't let a few past cases prejudice you against it.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> This whole 'concentration camp' thing is arguing 'tomato' from 'tomahto'. Everyone knows what the real connotation of 'concentration camp' is vis a vis 'detention centre'.



Exactly, that's what I've been saying.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Not acting on intelligence data, no matter how circumstancial, can be deadly. International intelligence gathering does not act like a court of law.



We should act on intelligence data, even circumstantial intelligence data, but that data should not be considered proof, and one outcome should not be inferred from it. Suspicious activities can be investigated without automatically being considered part of some terrorist conspiracy.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Just because OUR gov't does not believe there is a terrorist threat does not make me feel any safer....
> 
> I'll agree with you that the media does blow things out of proportion more often the not, but that does not make the threat any less.



Maybe yes, maybe no. The government doesn't seem to think it's too much of a problem, and they're likely going by information beyond our reach.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> I'll bet my whole month's pay thats probably what Spain thought too.



I'm pretty sure I've heard about Spain having trouble with Islamic terrorists in the past. In any event, they have a lot of trouble with ETA and formerly with communist terrorists, so it's not as if they didn't have anti-terrorist measure in place already, or that they didn't think any terrorist attacks would ever occur.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> No one is inviting them...



A lot of "them" would consider that racism.



			
				Cpl Bloggins said:
			
		

> I think you answered your own question, yes I do asshat, and one that's better then yours, clearly. :nana:
> 
> (Sorry I just had to respond to that.)
> 
> Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...



Yeah, I'm sure it's better THAN mine. I didn't know there was some sort of program hierarchy at UofT.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> Mostly? If not exclusively?
> 
> Well until recently the largest, and most troub;ed detention centre in Aus was Woomera, in the state of SOUTH Australia. Most of that state is desert.
> Another centre is Maribynong (near where i grew up) in the southernmost mainland city of Melbourne.



I'm not sure where the worst are, but putting them in a desert could only contribute to how bad they can be.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> These pictures could not possibly be taken by activist who want to paint them in a bad light, or by the media after a story.



Of course, the photographs are biased, but the fact that their accommodations are worse than an American prison doesn't say much. There's only so much bias the camera can catch.



			
				cobbler said:
			
		

> The immigrants burn down buildings often, we cannot build them a 5 start hotel only to have it set alight.
> 
> The standards of these centres is much better than you would find and a school (summer) camp. They have TV, internet, sports fields, beds, food, medical care. They have everything they need, and if their stories are true (and they are) then the detention centres are much, much better than what they have ever lived in before. And certainly adequate to support them relatively comfortably whilst they are processed.



They're probably better off in the concentration camps than they are from wherever they came, but that doesn't change the fact that they're in Australia, and conditions are poor enough to violate the human rights your government seems to think these immigrants have.


----------



## Infanteer

R0B said:
			
		

> Don't automatically assume that he was going to attack Montreal just because he had their subway's blueprints or something. It's worth investigating and it's worth increasing security, but it's far from any acceptable level of proof.
> 
> Finding a schematic on a suspected terrorist's computer and Osama bin Laden's threats don't constitute a "good deal of evidence." At most, it's weak evidence. Whatever evidence you accuse me of lacking I lack because there is too little evidence to suggest a terrorist attack is imminent. That alone should be considered evidence for the unlikelihood of an attack.
> 
> Democratic western nations were founded in part by the belief of the supremacy of law. It's ridiculous to suggest that we should just abandon the law to deal with the state's enemies, not simply because criminals are also enemies of the state, but because this is the mark of unjust regimes. Not only is it cowardly to forego the law and liberty in hopes of achieving greater security, it's wrong, according to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What would you propose to do with a suspected terrorist found to have plans for say, the CN tower on his laptop? Would you detain him and charge him with a crime you suspect he will commit? And when will this end? Both the Canadians and the Americans interred their own citizens in concentration camps during the Second World War. That was done because some people thought it was more important to protect the nation than it was to protect its people. A major argument against private firearms ownership is fairly similar, that's it contrary to the good of the public. I'd rather place myself at risk than I would surrender my rights for what apparently would be more safety, especially in this case, where the threat of harm is negligible.



Nice firearms strawman.   Again, no claim was made of a specific threat - the statement was that the evidence is enough to indicate that a clear threat to Canada's domestic security exists; something you deny the existence of.   Since all you continue to offer up is "The Charter" and "court admissable evidence", I'll assume that you are talking out of your ass and that you have nothing to offer to this board except an uneducated assumption.   I'm sure Mr Sheuer, who has dealt with radical Islamists for decades, would appreciate the lecture on constitutional procedure.   Since as you can't seem to provide any responses to the criticism of your arguement, we'll let your slothful induction stand as is....



> I can only comment on what I know, which is based on what I've been told. The government hasn't mentioned that they've foiled any terrorist attempts. Had they done so, they'd almost certainly gloat about it.



Well, you obviously haven't been told anything and you've yet to demonstrate that you know much at all, so we'll keep that in mind - stick to trying to bang the sorority pledges and leave threat ID to guys who deal with these folks day in and day out.



> They have to account for these kinds of things so that they don't end up looking incompetent if something were to happen. Plus, they likely have their own interest in mind, and are looking to secure increased funding in light of one threat or another.



Good to know that strategic policy is based on hedging the bets.   Your opinion is duly noted....   :boring:



> You might be, but more than likely you just think you know what's going on.



You better check your six before you start attacking Mr Wallace's credibility - the ground beneath you is starting to give way; your move.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Rob you have lost any credibility you might have had. You constantly dismiss any opinion other than your own, and you insult and belittle the members on this site who are at the sharp end in dealing with terrorists and our enemies. I take back what I said earlier about being an intelligent person, you are merely a mouthpiece that regurgitates what his profs tell him, assuming that it is some holy writ. That alone makes you a f%cking twit!


----------



## 48Highlander

Rob, that diatribe just killed any chance of anyone taking you seriously, or of anyone responding to your "points".  Why?  Because with that post you made it quite evident that you have no clear viewpoint on what's being discussed, you're merely disputing any and every point which you can think of a way to dispute.  That is what we refer to as trolling, and it won't be tolerated for very long.  Be happy I'm not DS myself, if it were up to me you'd be gone by now.


----------



## a_majoor

Bringing this bandwidth back to some serious discussion:

Canada has been the nexus for terrorist activities for several decades. The FLQ, the Sikh "Air India" bombers, The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE), the Armenian Secret Army assassinating Turkish diplomats in the 1980s, the "anarchist" group which bombed Litton Industries in the 1980s, the Mohawk "Warriors" at Oka and so on.  Indeed, if we accept the purpose of terrorism is to compell government action by the treat or use of violence, then the "Mohawk Warriors Society" and the "Hells Angels" have certainly carved out "no go" zones for themselves where our Government (at all three levels) are reluctant to go.

We also need to think farther out of the box when looking at the aims of the terrorists. The LTTE sponsored a fund raising dinner and had Paul Martin attend. This is almost certainly a PSYOPS action, designed to demoralize both the government of Siri Lanka and the expatriate Tamil population in Toronto. The government of Siri Lanka would see that the government of Canada is not serious about combatting terrorism, when the then Finance Minister sits down with the LTTE for a fund raiser, and Tamil expatriates living in Canada would see the LTTE has co-opted a powerful government minister, which would make them more reluctant to approach the authorities against the depredations of Tamil tigers extorting "taxes".

The use of the internet is also a means of spreading terror. The videos of Jihadis beheading Westerners and Iraqis is certainly an implicit threat, and it is impossible to estrimate how many people might not either financially support NGOs or join them based on the threat.

In isolation, these actions might not mean much, but both the LTTE and the Jihadis also employ homicide bombers and more "conventional" terrorist actions to demoralize civilians and governments and compell actions. Certainly the use of the media and Internet to spread the message of the terrorists is a big part of the conditioning process. This is also a potent way of indoctrinating home grown terrorists (like the Underground bombers in London England), and spreading coded messages to cells operating here in Canada.


----------



## R0B

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Nice firearms strawman.  Again, no claim was made of a specific threat - the statement was that the evidence is enough to indicate that a clear threat to Canada's domestic security exists; something you deny the existence of.  Since all you continue to offer up is "The Charter" and "court admissable evidence", I'll assume that you are talking out of your *** and that you have nothing to offer to this board except an uneducated assumption.  I'm sure Mr Sheuer, who has dealt with radical Islamists for decades, would appreciate the lecture on constitutional procedure.  Since as you can't seem to provide any responses to the criticism of your arguement, we'll let your slothful induction stand as is....



There isn't enough evidence to indicate a clear threat to Canada, unless your standards for evidence are incredibly low.
You'll assume that I'm making assumptions? That's good.

Micheal Scheuer was said to often have been frustrated with his superiors' inability to target terrorists and Osama bin Laden aggressively because of a law enforcement mentality. It's that law enforcement mentality that separates the United States from authoritarian regimes.

But anyways, here's a quote from his book, _Imperial Hubris_: "It is un-American to argue that only those with military experience can criticize military policy and operations."



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Good to know that strategic policy is based on hedging the bets.  Your opinion is duly noted....  :boring:



That's not what I said, but quite obviously, they need to account for almost any possibility to avoid criticism should it somehow come about.



			
				2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Rob you have lost any credibility you might have had. You constantly dismiss any opinion other than your own, and you insult and belittle the members on this site who are at the sharp end in dealing with terrorists and our enemies. I take back what I said earlier about being an intelligent person, you are merely a mouthpiece that regurgitates what his profs tell him, assuming that it is some holy writ. That alone makes you a f%cking twit!



I haven't insulted anyone who didn't first insult me, and even then, my comments could hardly be considered insults.
You might think that I just mindlessly repeat what I've been told, but I hope you don't think that you're any different.



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Be happy I'm not DS myself, if it were up to me you'd be gone by now.



I'm quite happy you're in no position of authority.


----------



## armyvern

R0B said:
			
		

> You might think that I just mindlessly repeat what I've been told, but I hope you don't think that you're any different.



Ill thought out comments such as the one above do little to establish your credibility, knowledge or experience in this area of discussion. 
Be careful who you equate to being as equally mindless and unknowledgeable as yourself in this forum, as many of those you have decided know nothing or who 'mindlessly repeat' as you do, have in fact the experience and the first hand knowledge to back themselves up. That is something which you do not have. They will not be disclosing their knowledge of this to you in this forum...but just be advised that it is there.
Do not profess to assume that because 'you' personnaly have not heard or seen, that it does not exist. Not all is disclosed publicly, with very good reason. I do not think that you are high on the notify and contact list of CSIS and the RCMP etc.   While others, due to their lines of work, do have the ocassional privy to some of this info.
Tell me, what evidence do you have that a student such as yourself would possibly have more accurate information, knowledge and first hand information on a terrorism-related matter which many member's in this forum deal with on a daily basis in their many and varied lines of work? They, not you, are the experts, although I just know you will argue this as well. 
You seem to have a God complex - holier and haughtier - and always right although you have yet to place a single shred of evidence on this forum to secure your spot as a SME (Subject Matter Expert) on Al Quaida or the threat of Terrorism to this country. Contrary to what you might think about yourself, you are not one, I believe that is why, each time some-one asks you for proof or substantiation of your claims, you revert to the same old 'lack of evidence or flimsy evidence' arguments over and over and over again. You have nothing constructive or concrete to add...just the same old rumblings so I believe that you like to hear yourself talk, therefore I have placed you on ignore.
I lend more credibility to those who speak from experience and first-hand knowledge over a person still in school any day.


----------



## Zartan

2332Piper said:
			
		

> I though we had basically removed any major domestic terror threat (Hells Angels and Mohawk Warriors, groups who've actions could be referred to as terror acts)?



Don't know about the Warrior Society, but at least we've reduced the Hell's Angels to the point where they'll sue policemen for harassment over Christmas cards!! ;D


----------



## TCBF

it seems to me, after reading all of the above, that the solution to all of our illegal immigrant/terrorsuspect/passportofconvenienceCanadians is to set up Australian-style concentration Camps beside all of our indian reserves.   The indians could get jobs as guards, maintainers, 'intervievers' etc., and the detainees could look through the fence at Canada's future.

Tom


----------



## a_majoor

2332Piper said:
			
		

> I though we had basically removed any major domestic terror threat (Hells Angels and Mohawk Warriors, groups who've actions could be referred to as terror acts)?



We don't hear too much about these guys, but they are still out there. It is not in the interest of the government of the day to highlight law enforcement failures. It is also interesting to note that well connected criminal gangs who either have international connections (the Hells Angles) or unfettered access to the border (the Mohawk Warriors and similar gangs) will have a great deal to offer the terrorist organizations. Groups like Hamas and the LTTE raise lots of money through bogus charities and extorting "taxes" so there is no problem paying for services rendered. Acts of violence are certainly not outside of the arcs of criminal gangs, so there are lots of opportunities for cross fertilization.

Although I don't have the reference handy, I do recall reading about the old PIRA attacking and destroying public transit (burning buses) in order to force people to take taxis, mostly taxis that they controlled. Terror was used both to change behavior, discredit a government service or agency (part of creating parallel structures strategy in revolutionary war theory) and generate a cashflow to support other activities. A side effect was there was correspondingly less government revenue to support anti terrorist activities. Many of the drug cartels also plowed their cash into "legitimate" enterprises, and I would not be surprised to see evidence that Hamas, Hezbollah or the LTTE did (or are doing) the same in Canada today.

This is potentially more worrysome than mass murder, because these people have had decades to insinuate themselves in Canadian society, create parallel structures in defiance or opposition to the government and now have a deep and broad network to dissapear into when they do strike. Perhaps the only bright spot is there do not seem to be many areas of overlap; Sihk terrorists on the west coast have little in common with the Jihadis, and neither would have common cause with the "Warriors Society" (except as a convenient middleman for certain tasks). We are therefore confronted with a number of fairly small parallel structures, each operating without much mutual support from the others. In terms of intelligence and potential military action, there are lots of small infestations to clean out, rather than one large hydra like monster.


----------



## Zartan

a_majoor said:
			
		

> We don't hear too much about these guys, but they are still out there. It is not in the interest of the government of the day to highlight law enforcement failures. It is also interesting to note that well connected criminal gangs who either have international connections (the Hells Angles) or unfettered access to the border (the Mohawk Warriors and similar gangs) will have a great deal to offer the terrorist organizations. Groups like Hamas and the LTTE raise lots of money through bogus charities and extorting "taxes" so there is no problem paying for services rendered. Acts of violence are certainly not outside of the arcs of criminal gangs, so there are lots of opportunities for cross fertilization.



I'm a friend of a member of the Calgary Police Force (actually, the one who got sued, no less), and he told our youth group once of one of the ways the Hell's Angels were raising funds. Here's how it goes: most Calgary sports teams use red as their primary colour. The Hell's Angels have been selling clothes labelled "The Big Red Machine". While the clothes do not feature any team logo or mention of Calgary, even, one could easily mistake the clothes as being Flames or Stamps merch, rather than actual cloths for a gang. 

To counter this, the police launched a rather funny "Big Blue Machine" campaign, with signs even in the Saddledome.


----------



## KevinB

Sadly due to Official Secrets Act stuff no one who knows anything about terror in this country can post it -- or go on Canada AM - unless the govt says its okay.  Like A_Majoor pointed out it is not in the gov't's best interest to point out their failures in these respects.


 Back when I had gotten out of the Patricia's (the first time  ;D) I had a job while I went to University, during this job I happend to sit in (accidentally) on a briefing about Native gang usage of a defunct CF base - using its ranges and obstacle courses and menacing the Band Elders into leaving the facilities up for them - all complete with video and still photo's.  Now if you extrapolate the point that no-one outside some fed gov't entities knew about it - and could only observe it -- what do you think goes on in the rest of Canada with the rest of the potential threats.

 Frankly I figure one way to get rid of the Al-Q cells is tell the HA's that they (Al-Q) will stop them from sellling drugs and prostitution unless they get stopped - if we are lucky they will bomb each other to death...


----------



## TCBF

My money is on the 81's (the HA).

Tom


----------



## KevinB

:-\ I'm sure Al-Q has infiltrated a chapter or two just in case though....


----------



## TCBF

"I'm sure Al-Q has infiltrated a chapter or two just in case though...."

Be easier for them to infiltrate CSIS than the HA.  HA doesn't have to follow all of those 'reflect Canada' hiring quotas!

 ;D

Tom


----------



## KevinB

Keep in mind the "Shoe Bomber"  

I'm sure they could have people in every facet of our society if they wished too...

 I don't trust anyone


----------



## Kat Stevens

you call it paranoia, I call it a heightened state of awareness.


----------



## RDBZ

R0B said:
			
		

> A concentration camp is defined as: A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. By this definition, the Australian "detention camps" are clearly concentration camps.



ROB, you are hiding behind a missapplied and archaic definition of "concentration camp" that bears no resemblance to the contemporary meaning of the word.  You know that.  By your "interpretation" of the word, schools, and infectious deseases wards of hosptials are concentration camps.  

You ignore the reality that illegal immigrants are given the choice of returning to a country where they have legal residency.  No one forces, or even encourages, them to take up the option of temporary detention untill their status is reviewed.  In fact, every effort is made to discourage them from taking that option.

Your comments about "harsh conditions" and the centres' supposed location in "Northern wastelands", reveal your ignorance, as do your comments about Australia generally.  Only one country in the word has a higher proption of foreign born residents and citizens than Australia (that country being Isreal).   Believe it or not, very few migrants return to their country of origin.  The only exception to this being immigrants from the UK.

I can understand that you may enjoy being the centre of attention.  But why indulge in what many would consider slander to achieve it?


----------



## armywoman

RDBZ said:
			
		

> ROB, you are hiding behind a missapplied and archaic definition of "concentration camp" that bears no resemblance to the contemporary meaning of the word.
> 
> You ignore the reality that illegal immigrants are given the choice of returning to a country where they have legal residency.   No one forces, or even encourages, them to take up the option of temporary detention ununtilheir status is reviewed.   In fact, every effort is made to discourage them from taking that option.


Your post is fascinating RDBZ.  So I thought I would add my half a cent.

Archaic, missapplied, contemporary..
I have always wondered how it is we can justify, in theory of course, the mistreatment of people, by simply changing the meaning of the words.  Or by saying that the terms we previously used are out of date, so they should be changed to better represent the current political atmosphere.  Torture and abuse is torture and abuse.
Mistreating anyone in a detention type atmosphere is wrong, no matter what kind of situation or the era that it takes place in.
I think that compared to our normal views to what a concentration camp is, that it does not seem the right term for a detention camp.

I have yet to fully read the topic, and for that I apologize, but I recently got into a discussion with someone where we discussed the meaning of gang bang, and how the meaning has changed.  Because of that I was drawn to this post.

In regards to the second paragraph, I worked for several years as a supervisor at an immigration detention centre.  They are given the chance to return, if they don't..they are put into detention.  It is not voluntary.  They are there whether they like it or not.

For example
The tendency to change the meaning of a word reminds me of the US political environment after Sept 11.
To respond and protect(?) the American people from future terrorist attacks, they organized a whole new section of the government, changed a few acts, added some new ones and Voila the US Patriot Act and Dept for homeland security is born.
Which can overrule anyones right under the US Constitution if there is even a perceived threat.
http://www.answers.com/topic/patriot-act

Amendment XIII
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Sorry to change from Australia to the US.  I get alot of stuff floating around and am not always so good at eloquently forming and presenting my views.


----------



## Infanteer

R0B said:
			
		

> There isn't enough evidence to indicate a clear threat to Canada, unless your standards for evidence are incredibly low.
> You'll assume that I'm making assumptions? That's good.



I've put my evidence up in a logical and comprehensible manner - sure, it was open source and general, but it could get far more detailed if it was worth the time.  You've offered nothing in rebuttal; you only state that it is "a "low standard of evidence".  Strike 1.



> Micheal Scheuer was said to often have been frustrated with his superiors' inability to target terrorists and Osama bin Laden aggressively because of a law enforcement mentality. It's that law enforcement mentality that separates the United States from authoritarian regimes.



When dealing with criminals - I've stated that the law-enforcement mentality is inapproriate for approaching terrorists - terrorism is a tactic that is used by an enemy.  Again, you dismiss my statement and offer nothing in return.  Strike 2.



> But anyways, here's a quote from his book, _Imperial Hubris_: "It is un-American to argue that only those with military experience can criticize military policy and operations."



When did we start discussing military policy?  This thread is about security issues - the reason people are questioning your statements and your credibility is because you make statements and don't back them up with anything credible.



> That's not what I said, but quite obviously, they need to account for almost any possibility to avoid criticism should it somehow come about.



Well, you said _"They have to account for these kinds of things so that they don't end up looking incompetent if something were to happen."_ - if that doesn't imply "hedging" or "Covering Your Ass", then I don't know what does.  Have you read these documents?  If you had, you'd have known that the focus on domestic attacks by ideological networks was a prime focus and not an "account for almost any possiblity".  Strike 3.

Three strikes - I'm forced to believe that your persistent chatter (what some call shit-disturbing) on this thread combined with your inability to back any of your claims at best puts you in violation of the "substantion" clause of the Conduct Guidelines (meaning you're just dumb) or at worse makes you an abject troll (meaning you have ill intent for these forums).  You're on the ramp and the green light is on - did you pack your chute?  Keep it up and you'll find out soon.


----------



## RDBZ

armywoman said:
			
		

> In regards to the second paragraph, I worked for several years as a supervisor at an immigration detention centre.  They are given the chance to return, if they don't..they are put into detention.  It is not voluntary.  They are there whether they like it or not.



My point was that they are, as you say, "given the chance to return".  By contrast the inmates of "concentration camps", in the _contemporary _sense of the word, are not given the choice, for example:  Jews in Nazi Germany's extermination camps, woman in rape camps during the Bosnian civil war, or Boers (settlers of Durch origin) left to starve to death in the "original" concentration camps during the Boer war in South Africa.  

I have no problems with people stating that the detention system is harsh.  Still the use of detention centres by other nations such as Canada, France, Ireland, the US etc hasn't been commented apon as fiercely, if at all.  I have no issue with people questioning their value.   But to equate Australia's dentetion centres though a linquistic slight of hand to the actions of the Third Reich (go back a few pages), that is different territory....


----------



## Infanteer

Bravo Zulu RDBZ - welcome to Army.ca.


----------



## Infanteer

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/view/#rest

After a link to Frontline's website from another thread, I found this.  Take the time to watch it if you can, it is an excellent program.

Although it is focused on Europe in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings, it doesn't take much of a stretch to see the same threat within our own borders.  Marc Sageman, who is interviewed in the episode, has case studies which are particularly relevent to a reality of a threat to Canada.  His psychological profiles of Al Qaeda members zeros in on background, mentality, and the outlook that provide the necessary catalyst to drive middle class people to become jihadist militants.  Sageman's book goes into a detailed case study of the radicalization of the Montreal gang; it is well documented that the process of creating militant Salafi soldiers occurs within Canada.

How does this equal out to a threat to Canada?  Global Salafism isn't a group or a gang - it is, as described by Col Thomas Hammes' The Sling and the Stone, an *ideological network*.  The structure of the enemy is not physical organizations and command, but rather a connectivity based upon a common worldview.  Just as motivation is directed through an ideological network, so is planning, strategy and intent.  Osama bin Laden, although he was an active operative in the global Salafist campaign against the West, is not at the top of a pyramid.  Rather, his "call to arms", when combined with his street cred that he earned in the Afghan jihad and with his "Robin Hood" reputation with a large percentage of the mainstream Islamic population, is the center of a the web that is the ideological network.  His messages, his threats and his opinions travel out along the linkages of the web and resonate to those who have plugged themselves and their associates into the network.  The Frontline program discussed the "operational plan for Spain" that was attached to an Al Qaeda document.  This is not a direct order for a specific action to a specific person, but rather a message along the ideological network on what sort of action will support global Salafist goals.

Why would a conveyed message target us?  As Michael Sheuer points out in the program, it's about policies.  Iraq aside, Canada is very much in the Western Coalition that the global Salafist movement has targeted as an enemy of Islam.  Our policy with Afghanistan alone is enough to guarantee that there is a legitimate reason in the enemies eyes to hit us.  The options are to change our policies, which smacks of appeasement to a ruthless enemy who likes to cut heads off while chanting "Allahu Akbar", or to recognize that we are setting ourselves to be a target and to remain vigilant.  The enemy is out there, and the motive for his reasons to attack Canadians in their homes and places of work is written on the wall.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

armyvern said:
			
		

> Ill thought out comments such as the one above do little to establish your credibility, knowledge or experience in this area of discussion.
> Be careful who you equate to being as equally mindless and unknowledgeable as yourself in this forum, as many of those you have decided know nothing or who 'mindlessly repeat' as you do, have in fact the experience and the first hand knowledge to back themselves up. That is something which you do not have. They will not be disclosing their knowledge of this to you in this forum...but just be advised that it is there.
> Do not profess to assume that because 'you' personnaly have not heard or seen, that it does not exist. Not all is disclosed publicly, with very good reason. I do not think that you are high on the notify and contact list of CSIS and the RCMP etc.    While others, due to their lines of work, do have the ocassional privy to some of this info.
> Tell me, what evidence do you have that a student such as yourself would possibly have more accurate information, knowledge and first hand information on a terrorism-related matter which many member's in this forum deal with on a daily basis in their many and varied lines of work? They, not you, are the experts, although I just know you will argue this as well.
> You seem to have a God complex - holier and haughtier - and always right although you have yet to place a single shred of evidence on this forum to secure your spot as a SME (Subject Matter Expert) on Al Quaida or the threat of Terrorism to this country. Contrary to what you might think about yourself, you are not one, I believe that is why, each time some-one asks you for proof or substantiation of your claims, you revert to the same old 'lack of evidence or flimsy evidence' arguments over and over and over again. You have nothing constructive or concrete to add...just the same old rumblings so I believe that you like to hear yourself talk, therefore I have placed you on ignore.
> I lend more credibility to those who speak from experience and first-hand knowledge over a person still in school any day.



Well said armyvern, you eloquently put exactly what I was thinking. Unfortunately the SME-wannabee is an all-too common breed in many university political science classes. Ah well, all the more entertainment for myself.


----------



## R0B

armyvern said:
			
		

> Ill thought out comments such as the one above do little to establish your credibility, knowledge or experience in this area of discussion.
> Be careful who you equate to being as equally mindless and unknowledgeable as yourself in this forum, as many of those you have decided know nothing or who 'mindlessly repeat' as you do, have in fact the experience and the first hand knowledge to back themselves up. That is something which you do not have. They will not be disclosing their knowledge of this to you in this forum...but just be advised that it is there.
> Do not profess to assume that because 'you' personnaly have not heard or seen, that it does not exist. Not all is disclosed publicly, with very good reason. I do not think that you are high on the notify and contact list of CSIS and the RCMP etc.   While others, due to their lines of work, do have the ocassional privy to some of this info.
> Tell me, what evidence do you have that a student such as yourself would possibly have more accurate information, knowledge and first hand information on a terrorism-related matter which many member's in this forum deal with on a daily basis in their many and varied lines of work? They, not you, are the experts, although I just know you will argue this as well.
> You seem to have a God complex - holier and haughtier - and always right although you have yet to place a single shred of evidence on this forum to secure your spot as a SME (Subject Matter Expert) on Al Quaida or the threat of Terrorism to this country. Contrary to what you might think about yourself, you are not one, I believe that is why, each time some-one asks you for proof or substantiation of your claims, you revert to the same old 'lack of evidence or flimsy evidence' arguments over and over and over again. You have nothing constructive or concrete to add...just the same old rumblings so I believe that you like to hear yourself talk, therefore I have placed you on ignore.
> I lend more credibility to those who speak from experience and first-hand knowledge over a person still in school any day.



You've got serious problems if you're just going to assume people here know what they're talking about because are or were in the military and may possibly be privy to secret information. Then again, it seems to be that you just believe anything that already agrees with your views. I don't claim to be an expert on terrorism; I've never once said or implied it. A student such as myself has no more access to the kind of information you can have access to, and as someone who goes to school and doesn't work, I obviously have no first hand information. However, I do go to school to learn about this sort of thing, and the professors who lecture as theses classes are widely regarded to be experts.
What proof would you like me to post to support my claim that terrorists won't attack Canada? Would you like a sworn statement from every terrorist on the planet? There's no proof that terrorists will attack Canada, there's no evidence to suggest that terrorists will attack Canada, and there's no evidence that terrorists are plotting attacks on Canada.



			
				RDBZ said:
			
		

> ROB, you are hiding behind a missapplied and archaic definition of "concentration camp" that bears no resemblance to the contemporary meaning of the word.  You know that.  By your "interpretation" of the word, schools, and infectious deseases wards of hosptials are concentration camps.



No, they aren't, because students and patients aren't sent to schools and hospitals, respectively, against their own will, where they are subject to imprisonment under harsh conditions.



			
				RDBZ said:
			
		

> You ignore the reality that illegal immigrants are given the choice of returning to a country where they have legal residency.  No one forces, or even encourages, them to take up the option of temporary detention untill their status is reviewed.  In fact, every effort is made to discourage them from taking that option.



First, they don't always have legal residency. In fact, a number of them don't, which not only makes it nearly impossible for them to apply to legally enter Australia, it also means they cannot return to their home country. Also, a number of them stay because they feel they're far less likely to be granted permission to reside in Australia if they leave.



			
				RDBZ said:
			
		

> Your comments about "harsh conditions" and the centres' supposed location in "Northern wastelands", reveal your ignorance, as do your comments about Australia generally.



Do you dispute the fact that they're kept under harsh conditions? Would you I prefer it if I referred to the "Northern wastelands" as Australia's "picturesque boreal solitudes" from now on?



			
				RDBZ said:
			
		

> Only one country in the word has a higher proption of foreign born residents and citizens than Australia (that country being Isreal).   Believe it or not, very few migrants return to their country of origin.  The only exception to this being immigrants from the UK.



Where did you get those statistics from? The nation with the highest proportion of foreign residents is Luxembourg, and the country that granted the most new citizenships was Canada, both based on 2000 statistics. If you have something newer, I'd like to see it.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I've put my evidence up in a logical and comprehensible manner - sure, it was open source and general, but it could get far more detailed if it was worth the time.  You've offered nothing in rebuttal; you only state that it is "a "low standard of evidence".  Strike 1.



My rebuttal is that what you consider to be evidence shouldn't be considered evidence at all. It's not enough to justify what you suggest it justifies.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> When dealing with criminals - I've stated that the law-enforcement mentality is inapproriate for approaching terrorists - terrorism is a tactic that is used by an enemy.  Again, you dismiss my statement and offer nothing in return.  Strike 2.



The "law enforcement mentality" is the only appropriate mentality a western democratic nation can use. What Michael Schuer proposes not only borders on war crimes, it is also unjustifiable with by a county that is supposed to respect law and order.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, you said _"They have to account for these kinds of things so that they don't end up looking incompetent if something were to happen."_ - if that doesn't imply "hedging" or "Covering Your ***", then I don't know what does.  Have you read these documents?  If you had, you'd have known that the focus on domestic attacks by ideological networks was a prime focus and not an "account for almost any possiblity".  Strike 3.



Again, I never said "hedging," you did.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Three strikes - I'm forced to believe that your persistent chatter (what some call crap-disturbing) on this thread combined with your inability to back any of your claims at best puts you in violation of the "substantion" clause of the Conduct Guidelines (meaning you're just dumb) or at worse makes you an abject troll (meaning you have ill intent for these forums).  You're on the ramp and the green light is on - did you pack your chute?  Keep it up and you'll find out soon.



You need to force yourself to believe something? If you try to ban me using a rule that was probably written to keep people from making libelous unsubstantiated comments, you'd be attacking the fact that I disagree with you.
What do I need to substantiate? The fact that what you consider to be evidence isn't evidence in the eyes of the Canadian judicial system? You agree with this, but you seem to think that for terrorism, Canada's standard of evidence can be thrown down a toilet and replaced with something much lower, which you haven't defined.


----------



## George Wallace

I have had enough of your nonsense:


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> You've got serious problems if you're just going to assume people here know what they're talking about because are or were in the military and may possibly be privy to secret information. Then again, it seems to be that you just believe anything that already agrees with your views. I don't claim to be an expert on terrorism; I've never once said or implied it. A student such as myself has no more access to the kind of information you can have access to, and as someone who goes to school and doesn't work, I obviously have no first hand information. However, I do go to school to learn about this sort of thing, and the professors who lecture as theses classes are widely regarded to be experts.
> What proof would you like me to post to support my claim that terrorists won't attack Canada? Would you like a sworn statement from every terrorist on the planet? There's no proof that terrorists will attack Canada, there's no evidence to suggest that terrorists will attack Canada, and there's no evidence that terrorists are plotting attacks on Canada.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> You need to force yourself to believe something? If you try to ban me using a rule that was probably written to keep people from making libelous unsubstantiated comments, you'd be attacking the fact that I disagree with you.
> What do I need to substantiate? The fact that what you consider to be evidence isn't evidence in the eyes of the Canadian judicial system? You agree with this, but you seem to think that for terrorism, Canada's standard of evidence can be thrown down a toilet and replaced with something much lower, which you haven't defined.


 and:


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> They're available to all people, but academic journals are typically only carried by research university libraries, due to their outrageous subscription costs, and most university libraries are not open to the public.



Provide links and documentation to back up your claims; cut the rhetoric or leave.

You haven't said anything concrete or factual....just that you believe in the preachings of some acedemics who have never left their Ivory Towers... give us proof.


----------



## 48Highlander

R0B said:
			
		

> However, I do go to school to learn about this sort of thing, and the professors who lecture as theses classes are widely regarded to be experts.



 :rofl:

Yes, some guy in a tweed jacket is a terrorism "expert", while a room-full of soldiers are all just blowing hot air 

Let me clue you in pal.  Proffesors generaly end up teaching because they're not much good for anything else.  That's why I've run circles around every damn computer teacher I've ever had:  those with true skills, qualifications, and talent generaly end up working somwhere where they can make a difference, and make a whole whackload of money.  The leftovers, the ones who can't find useful employment, generaly end up teaching.

Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Holy crap you guys are still humoring this guy?

I think youre all overlooking the fact that he wrote the pam on internationall terrorism, and is one of canada's most respected SMEs.

You're right rob. Every single person on this site (none of them have agreed with you yet) are all wrong, but you, in all your benevolent divine wisdom, are absolutely 100% correct.

Also, for a change, I agree with 48th and he's absolutely right.... if those guys were "experts" they wouldnt be sitting around teaching snot nosed know it alls like yourself.... they would be working for the government and advising DND on the most efficient means of fighting terrorism.

Why do you think that is ? Maybe theyre.... less than experts? much like yourself?


----------



## TCBF

"... they would be working for the government and advising DND on the most efficient means of fighting terrorism."

- An even scarier scenario than teaching university.  Leave'm where they are.  Better there than tenured at CSIS.

Tom


----------



## muskrat89

Anyhoo.....   :

Anyone have anything relevant to add, or has this one run its course?


----------



## jmackenzie_15

TCBF said:
			
		

> "... they would be working for the government and advising DND on the most efficient means of fighting terrorism."
> 
> - An even scarier scenario than teaching university.   Leave'm where they are.   Better there than tenured at CSIS.
> 
> Tom



Well I would assume that the guys actually doing the job are the real experts, no?



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Anyhoo.....    :
> 
> Anyone have anything relevant to add, or has this one run its course?



Im surprised this hasnt been locked long ago, actually.


----------



## George Wallace

Well ROB does come in and post a long tirade of cut and pastes and then flees off to other locals before he is challenged by rebuttals from those on these forums.   He has provided no proof or hard evidence to back up his claims.   He refuses to profide any links to Open Source materials that may back up his claims.   He discounts all our evidence as irrelevant and not worth his attention.   He really has no credibility with any of the other posters, so unless he can provide concrete challenges to those put to him, we must assume that he has lost.


----------



## Infanteer

R0B said:
			
		

> My rebuttal is that what you consider to be evidence shouldn't be considered evidence at all. It's not enough to justify what you suggest it justifies.



Were not talking about criminal acts moron, we're talking about attacks by a global insurgency (who's motives, tactics and goals I've layed out)

http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/search/LessonsLearned/middleeast/Al-Qaeda%20as%20Insurgency%20.pdf



> The "law enforcement mentality" is the only appropriate mentality a western democratic nation can use. What Michael Schuer proposes not only borders on war crimes, it is also unjustifiable with by a county that is supposed to respect law and order.



Prove it.



> What do I need to substantiate? The fact that what you consider to be evidence isn't evidence in the eyes of the Canadian judicial system? You agree with this, but you seem to think that for terrorism, Canada's standard of evidence can be thrown down a toilet and replaced with something much lower, which you haven't defined.



Obviously you can't read, because I've defined it in plain fucking English multiple times.



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> You need to force yourself to believe something? If you try to ban me using a rule that was probably written to keep people from making libelous unsubstantiated comments, you'd be attacking the fact that I disagree with you.



No, the rule is written to prevent people from making claims about something that they know nothing about.   I'm not attacking the fact that you disagree with me, plenty of people disagree with me and are happy to provide counter-arguements for the sake of debate.   You obviously don't fit into this catagory, so now I am sure you are a troll.

You're an asshat and you've managed to tapdance around every direct question I've asked you.   I'm done wasting my time with you, as you don't even have the common courtesy to respond to criticism of your arguements.   As far as I'm concerned (and, it seems, many others) you have no credibility here.   Piss off.


----------



## Kat Stevens

It actually took 7 pages to get to the point where someone finally said it?  The kinder, gentler army.ca.... ;D


----------



## R0B

48Highlander said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Yes, some guy in a tweed jacket is a terrorism "expert", while a room-full of soldiers are all just blowing hot air
> 
> Let me clue you in pal.  Proffesors generaly end up teaching because they're not much good for anything else.  That's why I've run circles around every damn computer teacher I've ever had:  those with true skills, qualifications, and talent generaly end up working somwhere where they can make a difference, and make a whole whackload of money.  The leftovers, the ones who can't find useful employment, generaly end up teaching.
> 
> Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach.



That's probably true for computer proffesors (sic.) who end up "teaching" because they can't find a real job. University professors, however, at least at real universities, work as professors because they've decided to dedicate their lives to academia. Not to mention the fact that university professors get paid more and work less than government employees.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You haven't said anything concrete or factual....just that you believe in the preachings of some acedemics who have never left their Ivory Towers... give us proof.



It's impossible to prove that terrorists will or will not attack Canada.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> Holy crap you guys are still humoring this guy?
> 
> I think youre all overlooking the fact that he wrote the pam on internationall terrorism, and is one of canada's most respected SMEs.
> 
> You're right rob. Every single person on this site (none of them have agreed with you yet) are all wrong, but you, in all your benevolent divine wisdom, are absolutely 100% correct.
> 
> Also, for a change, I agree with 48th and he's absolutely right.... if those guys were "experts" they wouldnt be sitting around teaching snot nosed know it alls like yourself.... they would be working for the government and advising DND on the most efficient means of fighting terrorism.
> 
> Why do you think that is ? Maybe theyre.... less than experts? much like yourself?



No one has agreed with me in this topic, but I've received kind PMs.

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of professors would like to abandon the $100k+ they make for working 10 hours a week to work for the government, where they won't be able to choose what to research and what to write about.

I guess that's it, university professors aren't experts, they're a bunch of idiots who couldn't get a job working for the government or some company, so instead they've been relegated to teaching at an institution of higher learning.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Were not talking about criminal acts moron, we're talking about attacks by a global insurgency (who's motives, tactics and goals I've layed out)



So you agree that what you consider to be "evidence" isn't anywhere near what the Canada would need for a criminal conspiracy conviction?
It doesn't matter who or what is behind these acts, the fact is that what you have to suggest the threat of an attack against Canada isn't evidence by Canada's standards.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Prove it.



Scheuer thinks America should be" bloody-minded and kill in large numbers" and fight without principle, doing whatever is needed to win (Imperial Hubris, 242.) That sort of behavior is sure to attract allegations of war crimes, and quite likely, eventual convictions. It doesn't matter whether or not you think we should just go around murdering people if we think they're probably terrorists, or torturing people to gain intelligence. Who knows, that may end up saving thousands of people, but unless you know that for sure, you've committed a crime (according to Canada) to which you have no defense. Given that support for President Bush fell when the facts about torture at Abu Ghraib came to the public's view, and that support for War in Vietnam fell more and more as evidence of atrocities was shown by the media, you could reasonably assume that public opinion does not favor torture or what the reasonable person would assume to be illegal actions in war. Johnson did not seek re-election because he did not want to be disgraced by a loss. And, the reason he knew he'd lose was the Vietnam War. Indeed, Nixon won by a landslide, largely because he promised "peace with honor" to the American people. Michael Schuer's method may guarantee victory, it's indeterminable, but it would almost certainly guarantee the end of the political career of anyone who promoted it.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Obviously you can't read, because I've defined it in plain ******* English multiple times.



Why not state it again, right now? No, you'd rather accuse me of being unable to read to escape the situation.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> No, the rule is written to prevent people from making claims about something that they know nothing about.  I'm not attacking the fact that you disagree with me, plenty of people disagree with me and are happy to provide counter-arguements for the sake of debate.  You obviously don't fit into this catagory, so now I am sure you are a troll.
> 
> You're an asshat and you've managed to tapdance around every direct question I've asked you.  I'm done wasting my time with you, as you don't even have the common courtesy to respond to criticism of your arguements.  As far as I'm concerned (and, it seems, many others) you have no credibility here.  Piss off.



You can't automatically assume that just because you cna't place me into one category, I automatically fit into another.
"Moron?" "Asshat?" "Piss off?" Do you kiss your husband with that mouth? Could you please refrain from ad hominem attacks? I'd appreciate it.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Rob, everyone in this thread has disagreed with everything you say, and a moderator basically just told you to beat it. Yet you come back, 
spending alot of time on rebuttals that are only going to fall on deaf ears.

What the hell are you trying to prove? seriously, give up.

I have nothing left to say about anything in this thread, other than that I think its going absolutely nowhere.


----------



## armyvern

R0B said:
			
		

> You've got serious problems if you're just going to assume people here know what they're talking about because are or were in the military and may possibly be privy to secret information. Then again, it seems to be that you just believe anything that already agrees with your views.



ROB,
Now pulling brick #1 form the base of your ivory tower. I have no serious problem for I am not the one assuming anything. Look into the mirror...see yourself? I don't assume people here know anything as I KNOW some of them KNOW. This is not an assumtion on my part. I do not believe just anything that already agrees with my views either, and this is another assumption on your part. Want proof of this?? Check other threads. But this topic my young one, is one which many of us happen to have a little more (and in many cases - alot more) experience than yourself or your tweed-clad prof in. Do not assume that we just toe the line being military, public servants, RCMP officers etc. Because in doing that you are just again providing us with proof of how wrong and out to lunch you are.


----------



## George Wallace

We'll try a little experiment:

ROB says "Terrorists will not attack Canada."

I say "ROB will not post here."

His convoluted statement "You've got serious problems if you're just going to assume people here know what they're talking about because are or were in the military and may possibly be privy to secret information. Then again, it seems to be that you just believe anything that already agrees with your views." contradicts logic.  He says that people doing the job, some of whom may have access to Secret information, know nothing about the matter of which we speak.  He, who goes to university, hears from Profs who publish in Journals, which no one can find on Open Source (I don't know why?), knows more.  He has yet to provide on credible link to support his claims.  His "I heard from a friend (Prof) stance" is unacceptable as hearsay in any credible argument, without corroborating evidence.

ROB will not attackpost here.


----------



## Infanteer

> So you agree that what you consider to be "evidence" isn't anywhere near what the Canada would need for a criminal conspiracy conviction?
> It doesn't matter who or what is behind these acts, the fact is that what you have to suggest the threat of an attack against Canada isn't evidence by Canada's standards.



We are not looking to indict these people, we are looking for reasonable evidence to determine if they pose a real threat to Canada.   If we have to indict them, then it is too late as there are dead bodies somewhere.   If we manage to catch them before, then they'll have a comfy cell in Gitmo.     I've posted a reasonable summation of why these groups and organizations provide a credible threat to Canada (again, a general threat, not a specific one) and you've yet to counter it.   Put up or shut up and go away.



> Scheuer thinks....



I didn't ask what Sheuer thinks, but thanks for another logical fallacy in the long list you've chalked up here.   I asked you to prove how approaching Al Qaeda and the Islamic Insurgency as a military threat as opposed to a law enforcement one is a threat to our principles.   



> Why not state it again, right now? No, you'd rather accuse me of being unable to read to escape the situation.



Well, you certainly put on that appearence by consistently dodging the questions.   But don't worry, you are doing a good job of proving that you have no leg to stand on.



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> It's impossible to prove that terrorists will or will not attack Canada.



Nice subtle change.   Doesn't really mesh with your previous statements of:



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> Terrorists won't attack Canada.



and:



			
				R0B said:
			
		

> What's my point? It's that Canada isn't going to get attacked by terrorists.



So no it seems we can stick "hypocrite" in your repetoire now.   Of course nobody has a crystal ball, but you've yet to prove that Al Qaeda and its affilates don't pose a general threat to Canada (as they have to every other Western nation).


----------



## larry Strong

R0B said:
			
		

> That's probably true for computer proffesors (sic.) who end up "teaching" because they can't find a real job. University professors, however, at least at real universities, work as professors because they've decided to *dedicate their lives to academia*. Not to mention the fact that university professors get paid more and work less than government employees.



Exactly the point, they have spent their whole lives inside the "Ivory Tower's" and don't know sh8t about the real world.


----------



## Glorified Ape

Oh boy, more university bashing from the enlightened masses. What a surprise. 

As for the "those that can't do, teach" maxim - tell that to Henry Kissinger... you know, the guy that helped shape American Cold War foreign policy after teaching at Harvard. Or Condolezza Rice. Or the thousands of other individuals who have played influential roles in government after teaching at universities. 

Where do people think the theories and concepts which govern government policy, foreign and domestic, come from? The Theory Fairy? Here's a hint: it starts with an A, ends with an A, and has "cademi" in the middle.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I'd just like to interject here by pointing out that the most highly regarded (even "best")  military historians have never served a day in their lives.  Dancocks certainly at the head of the list, but many others as well.  I hesitate to mention Ambrose - some would say he wasn't a good historian but he was certainly highly regarded.  There's a long list of others.

I love how the soldiers say that professors know shit about the real world, when most of the soldiers spouting off don't know shit about academia.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

When it should come from " the working class"........

..and isn't this you?
Quote,
 The Kissinger-esque attitude of national interest justifying the most far-flung interventionist policies is what has put the world in the state it's in.

Maybe he should have stayed teaching? 

Michael beat me, this is in response to GA post above...


----------



## George Wallace

Ape

Nice rant   : just a little off topic.

Michael

Again off topic, but then we have others like Desmond Morton, Bernd Horn, Michel Wyczynski, Sean Maloney, Jack Granatstien, Michael McNorgan, Strome Galloway, Brian Nolan, Lew MacKenzie......... :


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Except that the subject in question is terrorism, and that happens to be the focal point of our profession at the current time, and I would be inclined to the think that the guys dealing with these individuals would have a more respected and enlightened opinion on the subject, than people in a schoolhouse reading books about them and using other peoples opinions as their own.

Also, "terrorists will never attack canada" is the stupidest thing I think I may have ever heard. The immunity that people think we have is absolutely ridiculous. They had no problem blowing up a couple of our guys overseas, or directly calling us out as a major target in videos procuded by and starring Al Qaedas leading man.

They had even less to gain from attacking spain than they would Canada... Spain isnt adjacent to the US, a part of NAFTA, a major economic partner, a country sharing countless cultural similarities....

And then theres those two poor people kidnapped in Iraq... Yes Rob, youre absolutely right. Since we are Canadian, and the extremists have nothing to gain from attacking us, they wont.

Maybe you should write some letters to your local newspapers and such, outlining how the real world works and that here in canada, we are immune to attack, so everybody can stop worrying about it. Im sure theyd all be very releived.


----------



## Infanteer

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Dancocks certainly at the head of the list



Who?

I would have said Keegan.


----------



## R0B

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We'll try a little experiment:
> 
> ROB says "Terrorists will not attack Canada."
> 
> I say "ROB will not post here."
> 
> His convoluted statement "You've got serious problems if you're just going to assume people here know what they're talking about because are or were in the military and may possibly be privy to secret information. Then again, it seems to be that you just believe anything that already agrees with your views." contradicts logic.  He says that people doing the job, some of whom may have access to Secret information, know nothing about the matter of which we speak.  He, who goes to university, hears from Profs who publish in Journals, which no one can find on Open Source (I don't know why?), knows more.  He has yet to provide on credible link to support his claims.  His "I heard from a friend (Prof) stance" is unacceptable as hearsay in any credible argument, without corroborating evidence.
> 
> ROB will not attackpost here.



Well, does anyone here (not in this forum, but in this particular topic) work for CSIS or military intelligence in a role regarding terrorism?
www.jstor.com hosts a number of online journals. They're available, but they're expensive.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> We are not looking to indict these people, we are looking for reasonable evidence to determine if they pose a real threat to Canada.  If we have to indict them, then it is too late as there are dead bodies somewhere.  If we manage to catch them before, then they'll have a comfy cell in Gitmo.   I've posted a reasonable summation of why these groups and organizations provide a credible threat to Canada (again, a general threat, not a specific one) and you've yet to counter it.  Put up or shut up and go away.



Investigate them and arrested them when criminal conspiracy can be proven. In keeping with the judicial philosophy of the Canadian justice system, it would be impossible to prove that a threat does not exist. It is only possible to say that a threat does not exist in light of insufficient evidence to suggest that a threat does exist. I've already noted that what you consider to be evidence does not meet the standards of the Canadian justice system. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe there is a threat, because if we are to judge by our own opinions, we would only end up having to agree that we are both not-incorrect. For this reason I would rather chose Canada's standard.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I didn't ask what Sheuer thinks, but thanks for another logical fallacy in the long list you've chalked up here.  I asked you to prove how approaching Al Qaeda and the Islamic Insurgency as a military threat as opposed to a law enforcement one is a threat to our principles.



It's a threat to our principals because nations like Canada believe that Charter rights should extend to all people. Terrorists can certainly be dealt with martially, but it is not possibly to justify war against a group of people who might be terrorists simply because they might be terrorists. For military action to be justified, the terrorists must be considered criminals, since they are not members of a foreign military and therefore cannot be considered enemy combatants.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, you certainly put on that appearence by consistently dodging the questions.  But don't worry, you are doing a good job of proving that you have no leg to stand on.



If you have nothing to list, don't worry about it.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> Also, "terrorists will never attack canada" is the stupidest thing I think I may have ever heard. The immunity that people think we have is absolutely ridiculous. They had no problem blowing up a couple of our guys overseas, or directly calling us out as a major target in videos procuded by and starring Al Qaedas leading man.



I've already mentioned that I cannot possibly know whether or not terrorists will attack Canada, and I've mentioned that I would not use such definite terms in a professional context. It should be pretty clear to any reasonable individual that in saying "terrorists won't attack Canada" I'm merely trying to convey my opinion that I very highly doubt that terrorists will attack Canada with the added gravitas that certain language affords. When you say "I'll be home at 6," you know you mean "I'll probably be home at 6," or," I plan to be home at 6" since you cannot possibly guarantee at what time you'll arrive home due to factors outside of your control.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> They had even less to gain from attacking spain than they would Canada... Spain isnt adjacent to the US, a part of NAFTA, a major economic partner, a country sharing countless cultural similarities....



Except for the fact that they were successful in replacing Spain's somewhat conservative government with a socialist government whose first order of business was to withdraw its troops from Iraq.



			
				Mack674 said:
			
		

> And then theres those two poor people kidnapped in Iraq... Yes Rob, youre absolutely right. Since we are Canadian, and the extremists have nothing to gain from attacking us, they wont.



It's funny you should bring this story up since you obviously know very little about it. For one, it isn't yet known who kidnapped these workers. There is some speculation that they have been kidnapped by thieves looking for ransom, while others believe terrorists may be behind this crime. However, who the kidnappers are remains to be known. Regardless of that, you should take into account that the people who were kidnapped were humanitarian aid workers. I think you'll agree that an aid worker isn't a choice hostage, compared to say, an American soldier or the employee of some American corporation. From what I've seen so far, I take it some opportunistic kidnappers stumbled across a group of unescorted aid workers and decided to abduct them. We'll find out sooner or later what happened. Regardless, ask yourself for a minute, "did the abductors set out to kidnap Canadians or did it just play out that way?"


----------



## Michael Dorosh

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ape
> 
> Nice rant  : just a little off topic.
> 
> Michael
> 
> Again off topic, but then we have others like Desmond Morton, Bernd Horn, Michel Wyczynski, Sean Maloney, Jack Granatstien, Michael McNorgan, Strome Galloway, Brian Nolan, Lew MacKenzie......... :



Jack Granatstein was a subaltern for what - 3 years?  Roll your eyes all you want.  Lew Mackenzie will never have the stature as a military historian as David Bercuson.  As a consultant, he's in the same camp as our favourite ex-corporal.   

So you named some historians (I don't agree that Mackenzie is one, by the way) that happened to be soldiers.  How does that disprove the point that you don't have to be a soldier to be a good military historian?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
_Well, does anyone here (not in this forum, but in this particular topic) work for CSIS or military intelligence in a role regarding terrorism?_

Just off the top of my head, I know of 2 in this thread alone......but do you actually think they will answer this question? :
Once again your lack of worldly experience is showing......several have tried to point this out but you just think that your little sandbox is the boundaries of life's intellect.
I wish I knew half as much as some on this thread......


----------



## Infanteer

R0B said:
			
		

> blahblahblah



Since all you've done is continue to supply the same answer off your index card from last week's lecture....


----------



## KevinB

ROB, Michael etc.

 This is NOT an issue of history, this is a intelligence issue.  20+ years from now Bercuson can write a book or teach a class on it -- but he cannot give operational level advice on what he does not have access too.   I've taken two classes from him and I liked him as a Prof - but I consider it madness to even add his name or other academic names into this discussion simply since they do not have the information that they would need to formulate a plan of action. 

 You can blather on to infinity about how your view is right -- I'll bet a lot of you don't beleive Al-Q had training camps in Iraq prior to the Invasion.  However it does not change the fact that they did, they have been seen, photo'd etc.  There is a ton of info floating out there that is not open source and runs way higher than TS SA -- suffice it to say that Someone in a bad suit sitting in academia resting on hsi tenure has ZERO info about the chances of an attack.

 This is not a knock on academics - this is ground based reality - that you stick within your arc.

Those fuckers will kill as many of us as they can, however they are patient and wise - and will stick the knife in when they can maximise both the effect - not nec a large body count but a specific target of "meaning".
   

You can continue to be an oxygen theif in this respect or you can STFU and start looking at what their end state is.


----------



## a_majoor

The sort of thing we may expect when they finally decide we are no longer "useful idiots" for their cause(s)

http://www.yourish.com/2006/04/18/1094



> MERYL YOURISH on Palestinian bombs:
> 
> Shrapnel is what killed Phillip Balhasan, who stayed alive long enough to realize his children had survived, and to hug them tightly before he collapsed.
> 
> But even this is not enough for the terrorists. They also soak the shrapnel in rat poison, because it causes hemorrhaging — victims may bleed to death before they can get to the hospital.
> 
> Remember all of this, when you hear the world tell Israel to “use restraint” in responding to this attack. Remember all of this, when you read about the innocent metal shop owners who insist their shops were only making nails and screws for construction purposes.
> 
> Remember all of this, when Israel is the nation that is demonized by the blind, hateful people who wear checked kaffiyehs at anti-war protests, and call Israel an “apartheid state” for building a separation barrier — to keep out the monsters who would use bombs like I have just described.
> 
> Remember this, when you look at the pictures of the results of the bombing, and notice the thousands of dents in the metal surrounding the bombing area — the mark of the ball-bearings and other metal shrapnel.


----------



## Centurian1985

Seems like a nice little dogpile on a mouthy troller.  

Rules for assessing terrorism in Canada:
Rule 1. If you are not connected to the government, RCMP, CSIS, or CSE, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone here you know what you are talking about.
Rule 2. Academics who 'teach' intelligence and/or terrorism are theorists about the subject, not experienced experts on the subject.
Rule 3. Academics who write research papers are not experts either, and the information they base their research on is often incomplete or incorrect.
Rule 4. A government spokesperson is not a terrorism expert; they are spin doctors who manipulate information for poliitcal intent.  You dont get to see the actual experts.     
Rule 5. Editors and other reporters who write their opinion in a newspaper doesnt mean that it constitutes 'proof', its only an opinion. 
Rule 6. Exemptions - I know of only 2 academics and 4 journalists in Canada who actually know what they are talking about, and its because they have done years of research, investigation, and travel, and have access to experts willing to speak to them on the subject.   
Rule 7. Many of the private organizatons that talk 'impending doom' are trying to keep business drummed up (i.e. personal protection companies). 
Rule 8. Politicians who talk 'impending doom' are trying to score political points or gain more funding for a pet project to make them look good. 
Rule 9. Americans are experts on the threat to THEIR country, not ours.  See rules 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 for other US representatives who talk on the subject.   
Rule 10. Anyone, even former government employees can talk about terrorism; they just have to use unclassified sources! However, see rule #2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.

How to find out who knows what they are talking about? 
Ask any so-called expert how many types of SAM systems there are worldwide and how many are in Canada. 
Ask them to pickout specific ground targets in Canada that would be the target of an AQ attack.
Ask them to describe how this ground target could be attacked based on known AQ tactics. 
If it makes sense, you probably have an expert on your hands!  Who knows, you might even have a terrorist!

Its hard to say much more than that ...but then...thats only my opinion..    ;D


----------



## 1feral1

Meanwhile INT sources say another attack in Indonesia is just a day away, and our govt have alerted all Aussies in the area about yet another threat. Wanna know more? Try www.dfat.gov.au


Regards,

Wes


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060421/terror_fbi_060421

Atlanta men met with extremists in Toronto: FBI 
CTV.ca News Staff

Two Atlanta-area men met with Islamic extremists in Toronto, where they discussed "strategic locations in the United States suitable for a terrorist strike," according to an FBI affidavit made public Friday. 

Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee -- U.S. citizens from the Atlanta area -- met with at least three other targets of FBI terrorism investigations during a trip to Toronto last month, according to the affidavit.

The affidavit said the men discussed attacks against oil refineries and military bases. They also planned to travel to Pakistan for military training at a terrorist camp, which authorities said the 21-year-old Ahmed then attempted to do.

Authorities wouldn't reveal exactly what Ahmed allegedly did, but he was indicted on suspicion of giving material support of terrorism. 

Ahmed, arrested March 23, was being held at an undisclosed location. He waived his right to arraignment and pleaded not guilty. 

In a joint news conference with FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Jones on Thursday, U.S. District Attorney David Nahmias stressed that authorities are not calling Ahmed a terrorist.

"We're not alleging that a terrorist act was committed or that Mr. Ahmed, at this point, we're not alleging that he was involved in a terrorist act. We're alleging that he provided support in the form of goods or services, to commit terrorist acts," said Nahmias.

Ahmed's indictment, unsealed by the court Thursday, carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 US. 

Meanwhile, Sadequee was arrested in Bangladesh and was en route to New York City to be arraigned. 

The 19-year-old was accused of making materially false statements in connection with a U.S. government terrorism investigation.

'No threat' to public

While the FBI says there is no imminent threat to the public, U.S. Department of Justice spokesperson Bryan Sierra said authorities are taking the case "very seriously. It's national security."

Authorities said the two men spent several days in Canada, where they met with others being investigated by the terrorism task force.

Sadequee is accused of lying to officials about the trip when he was interviewed at John F. Kennedy International Airport in August, as he was about to leave for Bangladesh.

The affidavit said Sadequee told investigators he had travelled alone in January to visit an aunt.

When Sadequee's suitcase was searched at JFK, agents found a CD-ROM. The affidavit said the CD contained encrypted files the FBI has been unable to decode, and a map of the Washington area was hidden in the suitcase lining.

A day later, government agents interviewed Ahmed, who was coming back from a monthlong trip to Pakistan, at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. 

The affidavit also revealed:

Ahmed went to Toronto with Sadequee in March, and that they had stayed with another conspirator. 
U.S. government agents found money for both men's 2005 bus trip from Atlanta to Toronto was withdrawn from Sadequee's account. 
They had tickets to depart March 6 and return seven days later. But the affidavit said they returned to the U.S. moments apart on March 12. 
In March 2006, Ahmed told agents they had met with extremists and plotted how to disrupt military and commercial communications and traffic by disabling the Global Positioning System.
Ahmed was born in Pakistan and moved with his family to the United States about 10 years ago.

He said he met Sadequee at a mosque in Atlanta, according to the affidavit from FBI agent Michael Scherck. Sadequee, whose family came from Bangladesh, was born in Virginia and lived with his family in Roswell, Ga.

With files from The Associated Press


----------



## Centurian1985

Excellent article; the point here is not that it was published by 'associated press' but that the information was derived from an FBI affidavit. 

10/10 for source credibility, 7/10 for supporting evidence!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Stuff like this is the only reason canada hasn't been hit yet. Our supply of funding and easy access to the US is too important for terrorist groups to lose.

Terror plot allegedly planned in T.O.
    
ATLANTA (AP) - A 21-year-old Georgia Tech student and another man travelled to Toronto to meet with Islamic extremists to discuss "strategic locations in the United States suitable for a terrorist strike," an affidavit made public Friday said. 
Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, both U.S. citizens who grew up in the Atlanta area, met with at least three other targets of FBI terrorism investigations during a trip to Toronto in March 2005, an FBI agent's affidavit said. 

The affidavit said the men discussed attacks against oil refineries and military bases and planned to travel to Pakistan for military training at a terrorist camp, which authorities said Ahmed then tried to do. 
Ahmed, who was indicted on suspicion of giving material support to terrorism, was being held at an undisclosed location. He waived his right to arraignment and pleaded not guilty. His indictment, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, was returned under seal March 23 and unsealed by the court Thursday. 

Ahmed's court-appointed lawyer, Jack Martin, did not return messages left seeking comment. 
Sadequee, 19, who is accused of making materially false statements in connection with a U.S. government terrorism investigation, was arrested in Bangladesh and was en route to New York City to be arraigned. Several messages left with his sister and lawyer were not immediately returned. 

"There is no imminent threat," said FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko, a spokesman in Washington. 
U.S. authorities declined to comment further, citing an ongoing investigation. 
"We take it very seriously - it's national security," said U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra. 

Ahmed, who was born in Pakistan and moved with his family to the United States about 10 years ago, said he met Sadequee at a mosque in Atlanta, the affidavit from FBI agent Michael Scherck said. Sadequee, whose family came from Bangladesh, was born in Virginia and lived with his family in Roswell, Ga. 
Authorities said the two men spent several days in Canada, where they met with others being investigated by the terrorism task force. 

Sadequee is accused of lying about the trip when he was interviewed at John F. Kennedy International Airport in August as he was about to leave for Bangladesh. The affidavit said Sadequee told investigators he had travelled alone in January to visit an aunt. 
When Sadequee's suitcase was searched at JFK, agents found a CD-ROM containing encrypted files the FBI has been unable to decode and a map of the Washington area hidden in the lining, the affidavit said. 

One day later, U.S. government agents interviewed Ahmed, who was coming back from a monthlong trip to Pakistan, at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. He said he had gone to Toronto with Sadequee in March and they had stayed with another conspirator, the affidavit said. 
U.S. government agents found money for both men's 2005 bus trip from Atlanta to Toronto was withdrawn from Sadequee's account. They had tickets to depart March 6 and return seven days later. But the affidavit said they returned to the United States moments apart March 12. 

In March 2006, Ahmed then told agents they had met with extremists and plotted how to disrupt military and commercial communications and traffic by disabling the Global Positioning System, the affidavit said. He was arrested March 23.


----------



## Centurian1985

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Stuff like this is the only reason canada hasn't been hit yet. Our supply of funding and easy access to the US is too important for terrorist groups to lose.



Thank you Bruce! 


BTW, this is a riot, LMAO -->


----------



## Old Sweat

Wes,

Is it possible the terrorists are aiming for an ANZAC Day hit?


----------



## 1feral1

Anything is possible these days when you are dealing with gutless cowards, but the threat is especially present in Turkey, where sadly, secuirty forces have to police that event on the 25th. 10s of thousands of Aussies and Kiwis will be there.

However, security forces will be on the prowl in Sydney, and most likely in all capital cities here in Australia. Sadly we all know that radical islam is alive, well and growing here, an its just the reality of today. Try finding a garbage bin in any train station for example. CC cams everyhwere, etc.

I'll be in the march here in Brisbane with whats left of 7 Bde. Apparently two trains full of us. It will all be over by midday, and then to our respective units for more beer, and to the ANZAC SGTs Mess for yet more beer for 1300, so it could be a long day/night. Monday night is just a primer for the following day  ;D

I will endeavor to head home early, as I live an hr's drive out, and I know my limitations with XXXX Gold. It will be a short week in a sense, as I have yet another 24 hr duty this week, and before ya know it, the wknd will be here yet again.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 241

It took almost 2 hours to read this whole thread and all I came out of it with is a head ache and I feel a bit dumber....  :argument:


----------



## 1feral1

At least you read it mate, as that alone is a job in itself.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Recon_Guardsman

For all those who have messenger, check MSN Today (on 10 May 06). Theres an article of a report made by the CSIS that states that an attack on Canada, in Canada, is probable. 

Canada's been on 'the list' for a long time, and nothings happened yet. I tell civvies all the time that if everyone else on the list has been attacked, it logically follows that we are next. Could this be the event that will make Canadians open their eyes and realize they dont live in a bubble? I hate to say so, but I think this is what it takes for the public to take its military and its defense seriously. 

Thoughts?


----------



## scoutfinch

Just to be clear, the CSIS report was from November of last year.

From reuters:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-10T184335Z_01_N10189325_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-CANADA.xml&archived=False

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's spy service, reacting to the release of a report by the agency's head that said an al-Qaeda attack on Canada was probable, stressed on Wednesday there were no imminent threats to the country.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Director Jim Judd made his remarks in a report last November to then Public Security Minister Anne McLellan.

"The director's comments were drawn from an annual report he submits to the minister ... and were not referring to a specific, imminent threat," said CSIS spokeswoman Barbara Campion. "There are no imminent threats to Canada."

In his report to McLellan, Judd said that while the threat posed by al-Qaeda to Canada and Canadians was mainly centered abroad "an attack on Canadian soil is now probable".

Reuters obtained a declassified copy of the report under access to information legislation.

In recent years Al Qaeda has twice specifically threatened to strike against Canada. In 2004, Judd's predecessor as CSIS chief said "it is no longer a question of if, but rather of when or where, we will be specifically targeted".

Although Canada opposed the war on Iraq, it has 2,300 troops stationed in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar.

Campion said the agency's assessment of the threat facing Canada was not new and had "been shared with the government of Canada and with the public in the past".

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Sadly, I think it will be more likely with the prevalence of apologist thought in our society that much of the reaction will be focused on "how we brought this upon ourselves".....because I can guarantee you the day it does happen, that's how the CBC will be presenting it.

The only hope is that it will motivate those who currently have chosen other priorities and remain uninformed (as opposed to those who appear dedicated to staying that way) to do some research on jihad and get a clue as to the true nature of the threat.


Matthew.


----------



## Korus

> Campion said the agency's assessment of the threat facing Canada was not new and had "been shared with the government of Canada and with the public in the past".



Key phrase, but one that many people seem to forget. Many people seem to believe that our flag is bulletproof and that no one dare attack us. Then they're astounded to find out that the second largest terrorist attack (casualty wise) was Air India flight 182, with most of the passengers being Canadian citizens....

[tr][td]


----------



## medicineman

How soon we also forget the Direct Action freaks in the 80's, FLQ in the 70's and 60's - though they were domestic groups, they still blew up people and places.

MM


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

I don't think Canada will be attacked by terrorists. There's no challenge in attacking a country as open and free as ours. Also, we haven't done anything to bring it on ourselves. We generally don't run around attacking foreign countries for their resources either- like some others do. The other countries that have been attacked are the ones that are involved in Iraq- Australia and GB. Most other people on earth think attacking Iraq based on lies and deception was a mistake, except mabye a minority of hicks in southern USA. That being said, Canada might be making itself a bit more of a target with its involvement in Afghanistan, but I doubt we're seen as a major troublemaker in the middle east. The terrorists can make better statements by attacking the US or Britain.

And anyway, lets not make this a self fulfilling prophecy. You military types might want an attack to say "I told you so" but really? Do you want your friends and family killed needlessly? I hope not.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
_Most other people on earth think attacking Iraq based on lies and deception was a mistake, except mabye a minority of hicks in southern USA._

What is it with the latest batch of users? Listen up lad, if you can't bring a civil discussion without being insulting than your next post will be your last........


----------



## TCBF

"And anyway, lets not make this a self fulfilling prophecy. "

-And how do we do that?  By provoking them on this website? 
 WTF, Dude?

Tom


----------



## paracowboy

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> I don't think Canada will be attacked by terrorists. There's no challenge in attacking a country as open and free as ours.


how are the United States (still the preferred destination of refugees everywhere), the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Bali, et al less free and open then Canada? .



> Also, we haven't done anything to bring it on ourselves.


 How did any of the above do so?



> We generally don't run around attacking foreign countries for their resources either- like some others do.


 oh, yes, of course. The usual "America is eeeeevil and is only involved with other nations to steal their resources" tripe. Give your head a shake.



> The other countries that have been attacked are the ones that are involved in Iraq- Australia and GB.


 ah, not quite. You left out just one or two.



> Most other people on earth think attacking Iraq based on lies and deception was a mistake, except mabye a minority of hicks in southern USA.


 hmmmm, another Jan Brady. Seems to be a lot of them these days.



> That being said, Canada might be making itself a bit more of a target with its involvement in Afghanistan, but I doubt we're seen as a major troublemaker in the middle east.


 or much of anything, to anyone, anywhere. Except for the Bin Laden guy who put Canada in his top five targets quite some time ago.



> The terrorists can make better statements by attacking the US or Britain.


oh good. So it's fine that they contine to murder innnocent people, as long it's not Canadian citizens?  They can go right on, merrily slaughtering any Brits and Yanks they can find? That's cool? 



> And anyway, lets not make this a self fulfilling prophecy. You military types might want an attack to say "I told you so" but really? Do you want your friends and family killed needlessly? I hope not.


you little punk. That is not an acceptable way to talk to the men and women who place their lives on the line to allow you the privilige to spout off with your ignorant kife. We're dying for you. Precisely so our friends, families and complete strangers won't be "killed needlessly".


----------



## muffin

Well addressed paracowboy... well addressed.

muffin


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!!

From the profile of Nightrain:

"I seen Platoon once"

.........That makes a good reference source for the purpose and aim's of allied military forces. I saw brokeback mountain once??oh oh!!!


----------



## Recon_Guardsman

Paracowboy says it how it is. We're on two lists of countries to be attacked. They have attacked everyone else on the list. One would be an idiot to think they wont attack us as well. Process of elimination dictates that we are next. We are not making a self fulfilling prophecy; we seem to be the only Canadians who take the threat seriously, and when that threat is acted on, we'll see who was right in the end. I dont like it anymore than you do, but thats how it is. In fact, I would venture to say that we like it far less than you, because in the end, we're the ones who get deployed, and youre the ones who stay home and spout off while making no contribution. Lets educate you on something... the enemy does not care where we are involved. They care that we are a western nation with western values. That to them is enough. These animals would kill you, your friends, your family, everyone you've ever known, and everyone you see walking by you on the street. And theyd be proud to do it. Pull your head out of the sand.


----------



## Kirkhill

And if you don't believe paracowboy maybe Muammar Gaddafi can convince you :

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1121

Muammar's options for you?  Become a Muslim or declare war.....

Choices for Westerners then are apparently become Muslim, die or kill all Muslims.  Pretty stark.  Fortunately not not all Muslims are Gaddafi.  Unfortunately some of the are.


----------



## paracowboy

Recon_Guardsman said:
			
		

> we seem to be the only Canadians who take the threat seriously, and when that threat is acted on, we'll see who was right in the end.


I prefer to hope that, precisely because we (and here I include our brave police officers, intelligence personnel, and other people such as Coast Guard, customs agents, etc) DO take the threat seriously, the threatened attacks will never have an opportunity to take place.

I would vastly prefer that our sheep never face this danger, and can, in years to come, laugh at us for being war-mongering paranoids. I don't want them to have to wake up. I would rather they live out their lives blissfully unaware of the horrors they never had to face. And if we all do our jobs properly, hopefully, they can continue to graze peacefully, occasionally casting a glare at us for barking at them, in order to keep them from the cliff they wander too close to.


----------



## George Wallace

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I prefer to hope that, precisely because we (and here I include our brave police officers, intelligence personnel, and other people such as Coast Guard, customs agents, etc) DO take the threat seriously, the threatened attacks will never have an opportunity to take place.
> 
> I would vastly prefer that our sheep never face this danger, and can, in years to come, laugh at us for being war-mongering paranoids. I don't want them to have to wake up. I would rather they live out their lives blissfully unaware of the horrors they never had to face. And if we all do our jobs properly, hopefully, they can continue to graze peacefully, occasionally casting a glare at us for barking at them, in order to keep them from the cliff they wander too close to.



Sadly this is where your pride in a job well done has to satisfy you.  For when you do your job well, the people you are protecting will never know what dangers you have protected them from.  It is also the most frustrating part of the job, because you can not tell them for fear of causing mass panic, or, more importantly, tipping off the "Bad Guys" as to how much you know of their intentions and how you are gaining that information.


----------



## Centurian1985

Paracowboy: I prefer to hope that, precisely because we (and here I include our brave police officers, intelligence personnel, and other people such as Coast Guard, customs agents, etc) DO take the threat seriously, the threatened attacks will never have an opportunity to take place. I would vastly prefer that our sheep never face this danger, and can, in years to come, laugh at us for being war-mongering paranoids. I don't want them to have to wake up. I would rather they live out their lives blissfully unaware of the horrors they never had to face. And if we all do our jobs properly, hopefully, they can continue to graze peacefully, occasionally casting a glare at us for barking at them, in order to keep them from the cliff they wander too close to.

Wallace: Sadly this is where your pride in a job well done has to satisfy you.  For when you do your job well, the people you are protecting will never know what dangers you have protected them from.  It is also the most frustrating part of the job, because you can not tell them for fear of causing mass panic, or, more importantly, tipping off the "Bad Guys" as to how much you know of their intentions and how you are gaining that information.

Well said.

As with all events, several detailed books will likely be written by several persons involved... but not for about 20 years!   :-[


----------



## cobbler

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> I don't think Canada will be attacked by terrorists. There's no challenge in attacking a country as open and free as ours. Also, we haven't done anything to bring it on ourselves. We generally don't run around attacking foreign countries for their resources either- like some others do. The other countries that have been attacked are the ones that are involved in Iraq- Australia and GB. Most other people on earth think attacking Iraq based on lies and deception was a mistake, except mabye a minority of hicks in southern USA.



That is one of the stupidist things I've read in a while.

You do realise that 88 Australians were killed in a  terrorist on October 12 2002, long before the Iraq Invasion dont you? And that September 11 2001 was also a date that preceded the 2003 Iraq conflict? Ever heard of the bombing of the USS Cole? Im guessing you dont/havn't because you clearly have such a lack of grasp on the issue and it's involved events that it is all too obvious you will just use anything to attack American foreign policy and anybody right of the loony left.

Australia was first specifically named by AQ in 2000 due to our lead in East Timor, and you sure cannot call that an American Crusade. Odds are if you have been involved in any sort of overseas mission (peacekeeping included Canada) then the bad guys will use it to try and spread their hatred.

The fact is that Western socieites are attacked because they disagree with our way of life; gambling on sports, drinking alcohol, strip bars, multi-culturalism. Don't think for a second  that Canada is immune and that this all began with the effort to rid the Iraqi people of Saddam Hussein.


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

> Australia was first specifically named by AQ in 2000 due to our lead in East Timor, and you sure cannot call that an American Crusade.



Australia/US/Britain are all seen as part of the same package these days. Canada, thanks to our former PM, is not. This is because we drew the line in the sand and said "Iraq is not a legitimate war". The terrorists, who claim to have poliitical motives, would be declaring themselves as pure anarchists with no real agenda if they attacked Canada (or France, unless they get involved in Iran). They don't want to do this. Canada is known for welcoming other religions from around the world, not as a "great melting pot" like the US. If anything, Canada is more likely to be used as a staging ground for attacks on the US. I don't like to hear people talking about how "it's just a matter of time' till Canada gets attacked and such crap. It's fine for CSIS to worry about that without advertising it. This whole debacle isn't about east versus west, it's a political/religious game being played out through violence. Osama been hidin even declares in most of his messages that he's some kind of politician looking to help out his bretheren. He certainly wouldn't, at this point, want to attack Canada unless we begin to be seen as in-line with US foreign policy. The "list' everyone refers to, from AQ, was made before the war in Iraq  which Canada did not give its approval to (of course that's assuming the "list "wasn't doctored to get more worldwide support for the US position). 

If you really believe in protecting Canada, and aren't just a bunch of trigger happy war mongers, you would agree that there is only one way to avoid terrorism at home. Our leaders have to distance themselves from US foreign policy, since it is the cause of terrorism to begin with. 

If I'm wrong, and terrorists from al Qaeda do launch an attack on Canada, then we have no choice but to retaliate. Until then, we should try to promote our international image as being one of accepting all religions and not of being pawns of Israel- like the US. Israel was a the biggest mistake of the 20th century.


----------



## Korus

Out of curiosity, what's your stance on the Khadr family? 
IMHO, they are a prime example of why terrorists are hesitating to strike, because we inadvertently support them by making Canada a prime place for them to study, plot, fundraise and a nice place to come back to for healthcare. At least we recently put the Tamil Tigers on the list of known terror groups...

But, in the meantime, as Paracowboy stated, we'll continue doing out job trying to bring a semblance of stability and security to countries shattered by war, taking the brunt of the terrorists angst over here, so that the Canadians we're sworn to protect don't have to deal with it here.


----------



## Centurian1985

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> Our leaders have to distance themselves from US foreign policy, since it is the cause of terrorism to begin with.



Interesting comment: when exactly did terrorism 'begin', if US foreign policy is the cause of terrorism? 

1776? 1914? 1949? 1980? 1991?  Tell me if Im getting close.


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what's your stance on the Khadr family?



Just because Canada doesn't fan the flames of terrorism, doesn't mean we condone it either. That family clearly has ties to a terrorist organization and should be exported back to Afghanistan. The kids just need counselling and foster parents or something- they've clearly been brainwashed.


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

> Interesting comment: when exactly did terrorism 'begin', if US foreign policy is the cause of terrorism?



Terrorism is a tactic. It's been around for centuries. I'd guess feudal Japan?


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

Terrorism as we know it, or as the US government likes to term it(one mans terrorist is an-others freedom fighter) stems from the creation of Israel. If Israel were suddenly moved, then the Arabs would be happy and throw a big party.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> Terrorism as we know it, or as the US government likes to term it(one mans terrorist is an-others freedom fighter) stems from the creation of Israel. If Israel were suddenly moved, then the Arabs would be happy and throw a big party.



Nighttrain, it might interest you to look into the history of the Barbary pirates, their record and justifications for their actions before you make such absurd and ignorant statements.

Actually, more than that, I challenge you to go read about it now, and then tell us if you still believe the same thing....


Matthew.


----------



## George Wallace

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> Australia/US/Britain are all seen as part of the same package these days. Canada, thanks to our former PM, is not.


I have no idea how you figure this.  Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and Britain are all seen as the same in the eyes of the people of the Middle East, Africa and Asia.



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> This is because we drew the line in the sand and said "Iraq is not a legitimate war".


Another warped statement.  We are looked at as being a Western, non-Islamic, nation.  They don't care about our participation in the war in Iraq or the lack of participation in the war.  We are just Infidels to them. 



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> The terrorists, who claim to have political motives, would be declaring themselves as pure anarchists with no real agenda if they attacked Canada (or France, unless they get involved in Iran).


Wake up and smell the coffee.  France, Italy, Spain, Holland, as well as the UK have been targeted for Terrorist attacks already, as have several other European countries and Pacific Rim nations.



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> They don't want to do this. Canada is known for welcoming other religions from around the world, not as a "great melting pot" like the US.


So?  The UK, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Holland, France,............almost all nations in the Western World accept people of different faiths.  No points for you here.



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> If anything, Canada is more likely to be used as a staging ground for attacks on the US.


Not too many of us are comfortable with this idea.  To us, if Canada is to be used as a 'staging ground' for attacks on the US, then it can be considered an attack on us.  Would you accept a gang of robbers in your house, staging a robbery on the bank next door, perhaps tunnelling in through your basement?  You have now become an accessory to a crime.  Thanks, but No Thanks!



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> I don't like to hear people talking about how "it's just a matter of time' till Canada gets attacked and such crap.


This is a MILITARY FORUM.  We anticipate and train for any eventuality.  If you don't like it, go join a Left leaning, Birkenstock wearing, group on another site.  Your freedom of speech also includes the freedom to walk away.  Perhaps I should say RUN!



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> It's fine for CSIS to worry about that without advertising it. This whole debacle isn't about east versus west,


Yes it is. 


			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> it's a political/religious game being played out through violence.


It sure is.....and it could be coming to a neighbourhood near you.



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> Osama been hidin even declares in most of his messages that he's some kind of politician looking to help out his bretheren.



Again, an Us against Them argument.  Islam against the Great Satan or the West (of which we are part of).  All us Infidels must die.



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> He certainly wouldn't, at this point, want to attack Canada unless we begin to be seen as in-line with US foreign policy.



OK.  Are we pawns or in line with US Foreign Policy or not.  Make up your mind. 



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> The "list' everyone refers to, from AQ, was made before the war in Iraq  which Canada did not give its approval to (of course that's assuming the "list "wasn't doctored to get more worldwide support for the US position).


I don't think you have your facts straight on that.  I wonder why Canada is still on the list then? 



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> If you really believe in protecting Canada, and aren't just a bunch of trigger happy war mongers, you would agree that there is only one way to avoid terrorism at home. Our leaders have to distance themselves from US foreign policy, since it is the cause of terrorism to begin with.


Now you have bounced back on that again.  Are we or aren't we?

And I do take offence in your reference to us as being "Just a bunch of trigger happy war mongers".  Is an apology coming?



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> If I'm wrong, and terrorists from al Qaeda do launch an attack on Canada, then we have no choice but to retaliate.


Who is talking retaliation now?  Why should we not be prepared to defend ourselves from an attack being launched on Canada?  Do you want the crime to happen first, or try to take steps to prevent it?



			
				NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> Until then, we should try to promote our international image as being one of accepting all religions and not of being pawns of Israel- like the US. Israel was a the biggest mistake of the 20th century.



Sounds an awful lot like a Conspiracy Theorist statement, which you have been claiming not to be up until now, or a statement that a White Supremacist might have made.  I would prefer to think of you as more of the former, than the latter.


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

> Sounds an awful lot like a Conspiracy Theorist statement, which you have been claiming not to be up until now, or a statement that a White Supremacist might have made.  I would prefer to think of you as more of the former, than the latter.



White supremacist? If I were that, I'd be all over the "WOT". I just don't believe in stealing peoples land. Don't come at me with the old "if you don't like Israel you're racist" crap. That's getting old.


----------



## George Wallace

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> White supremacist? If I were that, I'd be all over the "WOT". I just don't believe in stealing peoples land. Don't come at me with the old "if you don't like Israel you're racist" crap. That's getting old.


Hey....you made the statements.  I guess you are in the other boat then.  A Conspiracy Theorist, who thinks that 911 was a US plot to justify the attack on Iraq and then move into Afghanistan.  A Theorist, that figures that the poor Taliban and OBL are being demonized by the West for reasons that can only benefit the almighty American Imperialist goals.  Your tirades are getting very old.


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

> I guess you are in the other boat then.  A Conspiracy Theorist



I didn't' know the creation of Israel in 1947 was a conspiracy? The muslims had owned that land for centuries. Only later on did the Jewish folk show up because of persecution elsewhere. Then of course they divided it up and everyone  got mad. End the madness, end Israel by moving it elsewhere.


----------



## scoutfinch

Somebody broke their crack pipe before lunch. :


----------



## George Wallace

And what of Algeria?  Well before the creation, or even the settling of Jews in Israel.


----------



## Kirkhill

I've got it.

Its "Comical Ali" and he's working for Ahmadinejad now.   :


----------



## Kat Stevens

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> I didn't' know the creation of Israel in 1947 was a conspiracy? The muslims had owned that land for centuries. Only later on did the Jewish folk show up because of persecution elsewhere. Then of course they divided it up and everyone  got mad. End the madness, end Israel by moving it elsewhere.



Jews lived in Palestine/Isreal for about a thousand years before anyone even remotely resembling a Muslim showed up, I believe.


----------



## vonGarvin

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> I didn't' know the creation of Israel in 1947 was a conspiracy? The muslims had owned that land for centuries. Only later on did the Jewish folk show up because of persecution elsewhere. Then of course they divided it up and everyone  got mad. End the madness, end Israel by moving it elsewhere.


Hey, I saw "The Ten Commandments" as well.  Jewish folk persecuted in Egypt and them moving into Israel.  Man, what were they thinking (in case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic)


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And what of Algeria?  Well before the creation, or even the settling of Jews in Israel.



What about Algeria? You mean the terrorism from there? It's the same old same old. Some European country decides to supplant the locals and they don't like it- surprise surprise. How anyone can support the nuclear Israel is beyond me. 

"Hey guys, lets take a bunch of Jewish folks with no home frome Europe and stick them in the middle of a bunch of Islamic Arabs AND lets give them Nuclear weapons so the Arabs don't kick their rosy red asses back to Russia or wherever they came from. Sounds good to me Geoff, how about you Francois? Cool, let's do it and see what happens..."


----------



## vonGarvin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I've got it.
> 
> Its "Comical Ali" and he's working for Ahmadinejad now.   :


http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

Check it out!


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

> Jews lived in Palestine/Isreal for about a thousand years before anyone even remotely resembling a Muslim showed up, I believe.



LOL. So it is written. There are old stories of nomadic Jews living there at one point- big deal. Up until the 1800s it was all arab and then the big influx of jewish folk happened after the war. How about we give Canada back to the Indians while we're at it eh? Let's not be hypocritical here.


----------



## George Wallace

:  Make up your mind.  Now the Jewish folk started showing up in the 1800's.  That would put some there before 1947, if my old long hand math is correct.  Seems that would give them some legitimate claims.  

As for Canada's Indians, where have you been?  Look at what is happening in the news in Newmarket.  Check out what the Algonquin's are claiming in the Ottawa Valley.  Seems to me that your tongue in cheek comment may not be too far off the mark.


----------



## George Wallace

I have to get some more Yarn to play with this cat.......


----------



## George Wallace

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And I do take offence in your reference to us as being "Just a bunch of trigger happy war mongers".  Is an apology coming?



So?  I take it "NO" is your answer.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oy,  Nightrain whatever.

Do yourself a favour and check up on George's and Blackshirts suggestions about the Barbary pirates.  I'll give you another reading assignment for consideration - I'm sure you will have adequate time before classes resume in the fall -  "White Gold" by Giles Milton.  It is all about peace loving Algerians borrowing free labour from those nasty white guys in Spain, France, England, Ireland, Iceland and America in the 17th and 18th century.  

Here's a short summary of Algeria's history.

Arabs rebel against French because French occupied the place
French occupied the place because Arabs were taking French and other folks slaves, as well as supplying ports for white criminals to operate from
Arabs allow piracy against Europe because France kicked them out in 732.  It took the Spaniards until 1610 to expel the last of the Muslims that wouldn't accept the rule of the government.
Mohammed's mob invades Algeria/Tunisia/Morocco in the 600s overwhelming the local Berbers who converted or died.
Berber's previously invaded by Vandals who were passing through on their way to Libya, Sicily and Sardinia after invading Spain and France.  Originated somewhere northeast of the Danube.
Prior to the Vandals the place was invaded by the Romans
Prior to the Romans the Greeks, Cretans and Phoenicians all had a shot at the area.

Now you tell me again who started this mess and whose fault it is.  Algeria is simple compared to Israel.  France is a real dog's breakfast when it comes to figuring out who did what to whom and why.


----------



## 1feral1

Recon_Guardsman said:
			
		

> For all those who have messenger, check MSN Today (on 10 May 06). Theres an article of a report made by the CSIS that states that an attack on Canada, in Canada, is probable.
> 
> 
> They are just telling something what we already know, and yes its not if but when, sadly this is the case in the majority of western countries, if not all.
> 
> All a fact of life nowadays in our evolving world.


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

> As for Canada's Indians, where have you been?  Look at what is happening in the news in Newmarket.  Check out what the Algonquin's are claiming in the Ottawa Valley.  Seems to me that your tongue in cheek comment may not be too far off the mark.



How far back do we wanna go here? should we give Europe back to Rome, Italy? It's all just so retarded. We, the governing peoples of Canada now own the country, how we got it doesnt matter at this point. No one alive now was there then so who cares. The Israelis are a modern concoction that should not be where they are in the first place. I understand why the arabs are upset. The US admin clearly doesn't give a rats ass about them and only listens to the wealthy Jewish lobby. It's a fact jack. There are only two ways this can play out:

1) Israel is moved
2) We just let Iran/Syria/Egypt and whoever else go at it with Israel- winner takes all.


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

> Now you tell me again who started this mess and whose fault it is.



you answered your own question. France started it by displacing the locals. End of story.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> end Israel by moving it elsewhere.



Madagascar, perhaps?  Oh wait, that's an old idea...   :


----------



## George Wallace

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> ......... No one alive now was there then so who cares. The Israelis are a modern concoction that should not be where they are in the first place. I understand why the arabs are upset. The US admin clearly doesn't give a rats *** about them and only listens to the wealthy Jewish lobby. It's a fact jack. There are only two ways this can play out:
> 
> 1) Israel is moved
> 2) We just let Iran/Syria/Egypt and whoever else go at it with Israel- winner takes all.



That is rather simplistic.  Now that you have solved that problem, should we move on to Darfur and do the same?  How about Sri Lanka?  Should we give them the same options: 1) Tamils move out to India, or; 2) Tamils and Sinhalese go at it and winner take all.  After, Sri Lanka, let's move on to Indonesia......and then.....


----------



## Centurian1985

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> Terrorism as we know it, or as the US government likes to term it(one mans terrorist is an-others freedom fighter) stems from the creation of Israel. If Israel were suddenly moved, then the Arabs would be happy and throw a big party.



Oh, man, I knew if he got given enough rope he was gonna hang himself, but this is more than I expected...   :clown:


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is rather simplistic.  Now that you have solved that problem, should we move on to Darfur and do the same?  How about Sri Lanka?  Should we give them the same options: 1) Tamils move out to India, or; 2) Tamils and Sinhalese go at it and winner take all.  After, Sri Lanka, let's move on to Indonnesia......and then.....



Well okay, there's a third option. 

Everyone just gets tired of fighting and kisses and makes up. I like it. Lets run with that.

Problem is that as long as Israel occupies any inch of that land, there will be Middle Eastern brand terrorism. It's a tough situation, because both sides are too stubborn to make any attempts at peace. Then there is the new problem that this predicament has created. There are those that now rely on the fight for a purpose in life. These are people with nothing to lose, no money or power, who have devoted their lives to being anti-semetic. They need jobs and an economy- so that they're too happy with their own prospects to go blow themselves up over politics. Until one of those things happens, I can't see any way out, and companies that make bullets will continue to post record profits at the expense of everyone on the recieving end.


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

BTW I think that terrorism has only killed a few thousand Americans and a handful of Canadians who were in the twin towers- in North America. This was a once in a lifetime catastrophic event. We have a far greater threat to worry about...

OBESITY!!!!

 ...it kills MANY thousands EVERY YEAR! 

I say "WAR ON FAT". (WOF)

If we really wanted to protect the peoples of our Great Nations, we'd have FAT patrols, groups of 8 brave men or so that would force us to do pushups if they can pinch an inch.

I would support that war for sure.


----------



## Kirkhill

TTFE


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> TTFE



What? Where are you going?


----------



## Franko

Wow....put down the crack pipe and put away the tin foil hat.

You're bouncing all over the place....stick to a topic will ya?     :


Regards


----------



## 1feral1

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> Well okay, there's a third option.
> 
> I can't see any way out, and companies that make bullets will continue to post record profits at the expense of everyone on the recieving end.



Nightrain, I think its time you call it a day. You are as much as a SME on the history ME about as much as I am. So, stop trying to be. Its actually a big turn off.

I have read your posts, and I am beginning to really wonder, not about the crack pipe, but the tinfoil hat for sure.

Its your integrity at stake, not ours, and you are just making a fool out of yourself, but if its an audience you are after, you have accomplished that, but the joke is on you, not us.

Need I say more.

Wes


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

So who here thinks Nightrain is a troll (as well as an obnoxious little prick) and should be banned?


Matthew.


----------



## George Wallace

Thickheaded.  Stubborn.  Unapologetic.  Narrowminded.  Well, she is close to being one.  We shall see if she has opinions in other Topics on the site.  Perhaps she can illuminate some more critical flaws in our opinions and stance on the world situation.  


 ;D


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

Can't we all just get along. I just don't wanna be part of the Axis of Weasels. 

I honestly thought Canadians were smarter than this. I simply refuse to go along with the crap I see taking place in the world today. This is how I look at it........I have friends from China, Egypt, Britain, the US- all over really. I talk to them online every day. I dated a girl from Iran once and she was a good person- hot too! You'll have to excuse me but the fact is the world is alot smaller these days than it used to be. If Iran ends up being attacked, then I'll know people who will be getting killed. That goes for pretty much every country in the world. 

It's easy to kill people you don't know. That's the problem with us.

Distance makes the heart grow colder.


----------



## paracowboy

while night-whatever is certainly in need of some serious brushing up on history, political science, and basic common sense, we can pick some tiny nuggets of truth from the bizarre thread of...whatever.

A great deal of today's terrorism is related to the Jewish state of Israel. If we look into the huge influx of ashnekazim during the '30 and '40s (history experts jump in when I screw up) we can see the tensions really build. During the '30s and '40s Britain trained a number of Jews in the area to conduct guerilla warfare against the Nazis - to the point of bringing in IRA to help train them. (This is what we call an oopsie!). If we look at the Haganah, the Irgun, and the Stern gang, we can see a number of excesses that canot be explained away, and do constitute terrorism, by any reasonable standard.

Britain attempted to keep the influx of European Jews down, to try and maintain control over Palestine and surrounding areas. But, considering the treatment of their European brethren, the Jews in Palestine would have none of it. (Understandable, really. A number of gentiles agreed. There were more than a few gentiles running guns and people.) Things got nasty for a while, but we all know the result: a Jewish state in what was once Arab lands (of course, before that it was Christian lands, and before that it was Jewish lands, and before that it was Mesopotamia, Ur, Canaan, etc).

Several Philistines (yes, the Palestinians are what the Bible call Philistines), became somewhat perturbed at this and began an incredibly inept, but incredible bloody struggle that ended, oh wait. It's still going. Still inept, and still bloody. 

Both sides were right, and both were wrong.

And they remain so to this day. Both right, both wrong.

Now, let's look at the neighbours ('cause voyeurism is fun). The neighbours talked a real good game about kickin' them nasty ol' Jews out. Every time a Palestinian stubbed his toe, a Yemeni said ouch. Everybody was real good at providing all kinds of assistance. Unless it involved money, land, Aid, or anything tangible.

What the neighbours did do lot of was, use the Palestinians for cannon fodder, and an excuse to keep their militaristic dictatorships in power. 

Anyway, let's skip ahead a few generations, past the inept Arab attempts at warfare, past the refugee camps that were used as excellent staging areas for terrorism and a means to bottle up the Palestinains in Arab lands such as Jordan, past the Syrain-backed Palestinian invasion of Lebanon, forcing the Jews to counter-invade (is that a word? It is now, anyway.), past the endless atempts by the US to reach a peace accord, past the butchery of Jewish children by Palestinians, past the teaching of kindergarten children by their Palestinian parents to worship suicide and murder, past the Palestinian gunmen using their own children as cover to fire upon Jewish soldiers, past the Palestinian murders of innocent men, women and chidren in Europe, in the skies, and on the seas, past Palestinians firing on UN outposts along the borders from positions near Israeli checkpoints in order to cause the UN to think that Israel is trying to keep them out, past the Palestinian use of ambulances to transport arms and fighters, past the Palestinians' use of Aid money to buy arms and produce propagansda, when their children in Syria and Jordan are starving, to today.

Today is what I can affect. Today, I see the state of Israel trying to reach an understanding with it's neighbours, and bending over backwards to reach it. Today, I see Palestinians murdering civilians. Today, I see Israel sending Aid and money to the Palestinians. Today, I see Palestinians returning that Aid with rockets and suicide vests. Today, I see Israel teaching it's children to welcome democracy and civil rights. Today, I see Palestine teaching it's children to want to commit suicide, in order to commit mass murder. Today, I see Arabs living, working, and voting in Israel. Today, I see any Israeli who sets foot in Palestine murdered.

I see Israeli soldiers place themselves between bullets and children. I see Palestinian terrorists place children between themselves and bullets.

I know who the good guys are.

And, let's look into tomorrow. Tomorrow, I see Israel continuing to make their part of the world better. Tomorrow, I see Palestinians continue to murder each other for power, murder Jews for racism, and murder anyone else nearby for the hell of it.


----------



## paracowboy

oh, and nightrain,
any more insinuations that Candian soldiers are warmongering, or enjoy killing, or anything remotely slanderous will draw unpleasant consequences, resulting in the formal warning process.

Soldiers hate war. Any soldier who has seen war or the effects of war, hates it. He hates what it does to a proud people. He hates what it does to the cities and fields. I have seen what war does. But, I serve my country's interests in foreign lands that those same effects never happen in my country. If we do not stop evil away from our borders, we will have to deal with it within our borders. And I do not want to see Canadian citizens living under those conditions. 

We serve because we are not war-mongers. Any insinuation otherwise is slanderous.



> that Candian soldiers


 or even Can*a*dian soldiers. :


----------



## George Wallace

It really is a rosy world out there if you don't take the blinders off.  This in from Asia:


> 11 May, 2006
> INDONESIA
> Seven men admit their role in the decapitation of Christian women in Poso
> by Benteng Reges
> 
> Alleged terrorists in detention admit their role in the murder of three young women last year in Poso. Police is still looking for the mastermind.
> 
> 
> Jakarta (AsiaNews) – Indonesian police announced yesterday that seven suspected Islamic terrorists have admitted that they took part in the decapitation of three young Christian women in Poso (Central Sulawesi) on October 29, 2005. The manhunt for Taufik Bulaga, alias Upik, who allegedly masterminded the crime, continues according to a law enforcement spokesman.
> 
> Central Sulawesi police chief Brigadier General Oegroseno said that two of the suspects also acknowledge ties to Noordin Top, regarded as a key leader of the al-Qaida-linked group Jemaah Islamiyah.
> 
> The anti-terror unit captured Taufik Bulaga last Monday downtown Poso, but he was able to flee thanks to an angry mob that attacked the police.
> 
> Police spokesman Anton Bachrul Alam said Bulaga is dangerous man, among the top of the most wanted criminals. He is a suspect in the murder of a soldier’s wife, Helmy Tobiling, in July 2004, and of the three young Christian women.
> 
> “We won’t give up. We shall continue the investigation until Bulaga is brought to justice,” Brigadier General Anton said.
> 
> Sulawesi remains the scene of periodic outbursts of violence. Between 1998 and 2001 it saw widespread sectarian clashes that left thousands dead.
> 
> So far only three Christians have been tried and sentenced to death as a result of that violence. They are scheduled to be executed in a few days.



http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=6136

The problem with al-Qaida is that it has links to other groups like Jemaah Islamiyah around the world.  Some of these groups are more fanatical than others.  Politics really mean nothing to them.


----------



## NightrainFXSTB

> But, I serve my country's interests in foreign lands that those same effects never happen in my country. If we do not stop evil away from our borders, we will have to deal with it within our borders.



I have no problem with Smiting Evil...that's great. The problem is that  EVIL is not always black and white- it's a grey area. Allot of what I see going on today is people saying stuff like 'you're with me or against me'. It's just not that simple. The Palestinians are a product of  their environment. If I grow up in Palestine, there's a good chance my brother has been killed by the Israeli forces, or sent to a prison or what have you. If this had happened to your family you would want blood too. It's a vicious cycle that really can't ever end unless the Palestinians become as prosperous as their neighbors. In a sense, that 's the whole problem of terrorism. Haves and have nots. As members of a "have' society" and in typical conservative fashion, most people in wealthy nations believe that "anyone can pull themselves up by the bootstraps". That's simply not true- it goes against the laws of physics. Have you ever tried to pull yourself up by your bootstrap(whatever that is)? Liberals have come to terms with this and this is why they are labelled 'bleeding hearts". Conservatives prefer to live in a la la land where it's okay that there are others suffering for their "ribbons and bows " as Leonard Cohen would say. I just can't ignore the truth, I guess that's my problem. 

As far as this relates to terrorism in Canada. I'm about as afraid of terrorists as I am of getting struck by lightning. Some people need to take of the skirts and stop being such fraidy cats. Oh no....the poor people are coming for us....RUN!


----------



## George Wallace

:  You really don't get the point do you?  And I waited all this time for you to SpellCheck, just to read this.   :


----------



## a_majoor

It is always easier to blame Israel, "Imperialists", "Capitalists", the Men in Black etc. for what is going on than  to step back and see the problem for what it really is.

The Root Causetm of crime and terrorism is people who exercise the "will to power" and attempt to get what they want by force, rather than working through or creating a consensual community to achieve their goals.

Ultimately, the armed power of the State grantees our property, rights and freedoms from those who wish to take them from us by force. It is also our responsibility to closely observe the State and check excessive exercises of its Armed power directed against its own citizens (any law of regulation is enforceable by the Police, the agent of State power in internal matters. Nanny state regulations like smoking bans or plans to regulate the content of what we eat are examples of exercises of armed power against civil rights like free speech, free association and exercise of property rights ).


----------



## paracowboy

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> I have no problem with Smiting Evil...that's great.


well, we agree on something. Let's build on that. See that's what civilized folk do. Bad guys, now, they don't. They just use force to get their way.



> The problem is that  EVIL is not always black and white- it's a grey area.


 No, it isn't. If you are willing to place someone else's welfare above your own, you are Good. If you place your own above others' you are Evil. Selfless = Good. Selfish = Evil. Kindergarten children can grasp that. It takes years of ignoring reality to get confused.



> Allot of what I see going on today is people saying stuff like 'you're with me or against me'. It's just not that simple.


 You mean like people saying you will worship my god, under the rules I demand, or I'll blow up your children on a school bus? Yeah, that's a problem.



> The Palestinians are a product of  their environment.


 As are we all. Decent folks recognize that they may have to rise above their environment, and work to make it better. Bad folks just use that excuse to explain away their selfish actions.



> If I grow up in Palestine, there's a good chance my brother has been killed by the Israeli forces, or sent to a prison or what have you.


 There's also a good chance that he deserved it for, I don't know, participating in the murders of innocents.



> If this had happened to your family you would want blood too.


 Don't tell me what I would think or do. You don't know, and neither do I. But, if I had spent my entire infancy and childhood being told by my parents, religious leaders, and teachers that I should want to commit mass murder, then, it's extremely likely.



> It's a vicious cycle that really can't ever end unless the Palestinians become as prosperous as their neighbors.


 And they can only do that by changing their focus from being professional victims, and working to make their society functional. Instead, they choose to slaughter each other, and export murder. If they spent half the amount of effort into reconstruction that they do in destruction, the Palestinian authority would be miles ahead. But, then, they couldn't spend their days and nights gnawing on their victimhood like a dog with an old bone, could they?



> In a sense, that 's the whole problem of terrorism. Haves and have nots.


 ah, not so much. The problem of terrorism is bad people enforcing their will on others through violence, or the threat of same. Hence the name. 



> As members of a "have' society" and in typical conservative fashion, most people in wealthy nations believe that "anyone can pull themselves up by the bootstraps". That's simply not true- it goes against the laws of physics. Have you ever tried to pull yourself up by your bootstrap(whatever that is)?


 nice attempt at humour, but you're mixing it up a bit, and it loses its' bite that way. But then, both economics and physics are dry subjects, to begin with, so good effort. Boot straps are flaps that used to be sewn on the tops of boots to pull them on with. They kind of looked like ears, dangling down, and got caught on stuff, so they were eventually sewn into lops on the top of boots. for an example, look at modern day "cowboy" boots.

And anyone can make themselves an economic success. If they choose to, and put forth sufficient effort. It takes ingenuity. About the same level of ingenuity as making IEDs.



> Liberals have come to terms with this and this is why they are labelled 'bleeding hearts".


 again, not so much. Liberals (in the modern sense) choose to propagate the Cult of the Victim. It goes so well with their bizarre self-flagellation for being born into a functioning society.



> Conservatives prefer to live in a la la land where it's okay that there are others suffering for their "ribbons and bows " as Leonard Cohen would say.


 No. Conservatives (again, in the modern sense) prefer to work towards making the world a better place through direct effort. They prefer to offer opportunities for others to help themselves with some assistance. Liberals (again, in the modern sense) prefer to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator (except, naturally, themselves. Due to their inborn superiority, they are part of the priviliged few to whom all others must look for leadership, but not too closely as their corruption would become all too apparent.), by enforced, albeit arbitrary, rules.



> I just can't ignore the truth, I guess that's my problem.


 You just can't see the truth, that's your problem.



> As far as this relates to terrorism in Canada. I'm about as afraid of terrorists as I am of getting struck by lightning.


 good. We'll keep working to ensure you can maintain that state of blissful ignorance. You're welcome.



> Some people need to take of the skirts and stop being such fraidy cats.


 and others need to either help, or shut up and get out of the way.



> Oh no....the poor people are coming for us....RUN!


 I'm not scared of the poor. I work with them, and for them, quite often. What, exactly, have you done for them? YOU. Personally?


----------



## 1feral1

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> It's easy to kill people you don't know. That's the problem with us.


\

Well, if you like, I am sure there are many on here who'd pay a one-way ticket to a better place to live for ya? Maybe try Baghdad, Dili, or some other place, where if you say what you are saying on here, instead of copping some critisism, you'd be copping a beating or worse, a bullet, or both!

You whinge about us and our society, try doing that over there. You are another person who has taken his freedom and rights for granted as this was earned by others who died to keep it. Now a new generation are also enforing/maintaining what their forebearers have done.

So stop belly-aching, grow up, and get on with your life.


----------



## Kat Stevens

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> How far back do we wanna go here? should we give Europe back to Rome, Italy? It's all just so retarded.



You're feckin Eh right, it's reatarded.  The FACT is that Jews existed in the Middle East for several THOUSAND years before Mohammed was a bump in his mommies burka.  So, who are the interlopers in whos back yard.  Your proctologist called, he found your head...... :


----------



## Centurian1985

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> You're feckin Eh right, it's reatarded.  The FACT is that Jews existed in the Middle East for several THOUSAND years before Mohammed was a bump in his mommies burka.  So, who are the interlopers in whos back yard.  *Your proctologist called, he found your head.....*. :



 :rofl:


----------



## McG

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> It's easy to kill people you don't know.


Really? Is this first hand knowledge?


----------



## 291er

I seem to remember a lot of people with the same opinion that "oh the terrorists will never be able to hit us" in the US prior to 9/11.  Let's hope that's not the wake-up call the Canadian public gets.  The fact is, none of us know how much work is going on "behind the scenes" so to speak, by our intelligence and security folks to avert just such a disaster.  Who's to know that numerous 9/11 type scenarios haven't already been foiled here in Canada.  
As we've seen in A'stan, Canada is no longer viewed as a "peaceful" nation so to speak, we're just as valid a target as any other country.  Of note, when we obtained Al Qaeda's list of the top 5 countries for targetting, it went like so:
1. US - Sept 11
2. UK - London bus bombings
3. Australia - Bali bombings
4. Spain - Madrid train bombings
5. Canada

I think that indeed we should be ever vigilant and weary in light of that.....but not live in fear.
As for some of the abstract opinions of some "enlightened" civvy types (not bashing all civvies of course), with such statements that "I'm more afraid of getting struck by lightning than being attacked by terrorists", we've all seen this before on these forums.  Its quite easy to form such an opinion when you're not standing on the frontlines, and your biggest day-to-day fear is whether you have enough Easy Mac for lunch, vice whether your LUVW is going to run over an IED.
Just my $0.02


----------



## GO!!!

Good post Ex fusilier,

I too believe it is a matter of when, and not if, Canada will be attacked, and I think it will be quite the wakeup call when it does happen.

I also happen to believe that our responses will be tempered by a large portion of the population that will adhere to some ridiculous idea that we "brought it on ourselves" through globalisation/participating in the war on terror/oppressing muslims/pick your cause.

These people will immediately state that our dead citizens are our own fault, we did'nt do enough peacekeeping, send enough aid etc. 

I think that Nightrain will be among these left wing omni-apologists, who we will need the strength to first counter, then discredit and marginalise in order to create a solid national response.


----------



## Centurian1985

I thought this article summed up pretty well what needed to be done...

CCD by Paul Tuns Saturday, September 10, 2005 
To the CCD's Gordon, that reinforces the idea that, at best, Ottawa is ready to react to attacks and not prevent them.  While he does not consider the Martin Liberals serious about tackling the issue of terrorism because to do so would require a politically incorrect honesty that would alienate their core of Muslim voters, he would suggest that if Ottawa wanted to prevent terrorism it should stamp out its root cause ­ Islamic fundamentalism and the hatred it engenders. He urged Ottawa to apply hate laws to deal with preachers of hate  such as Younus Kathrada, who teaches at the Dar al Madinah Islamic Society's information centre in East Vancouver and who preaches that Jews are "monkeys" and "swine," exhorting followers to kill Jews and infidels. 
Gordon said Canada must also stop repatriating into Canada Al Qa'eda families  such as the Khadrs. He said that the immigration system had to be fixed, including imposing higher standards on refugee claims from countries known to incubate terrorism. 
Dave Harris, former chief of strategic planning for CSIS, agrees. He told a recent disaster-management conference that Canada needs "to get a grip on our disgraceful immigration  policies because we don't know what radicals are coming in." 
Gordon adds another, perhaps unpopular, measure: Canada must recognize "that we are at war"  and "invoke a type of war measures act in which we would accept some temporary suspension of civil rights, as opposed to more permanent suspension of civil rights that comes with terrorist bombings,­ death and the loss of freedom." 
For Gordon, until such measures are enacted to prevent terrorists from coming into Canada and operating freely here, it is only a matter of time until they successfully kill a massive number of innocents. 
"When we are scraping up bodies in Toronto, we know today that the killers will be Muslim and that they will be incited to commit these atrocities in mosques or Muslim community centres." Gordon said we have the power to clamp down on such incitement, but it remains clear that ­ McLellan's tough new tone notwithstanding,­ the political will is still not there.


----------



## reilly

Despite al Qaeda having mentioned Canada twice as a potential terrorist target and a top al Qaeda official telling Canada last week to get its troops out of Afghanistan, most terrorist groups use Canada to raise money, find recruits and plan attacks in other countries.

"Canadians have been involved in major terrorist operations across the world. For instance, the aforementioned Egyptian-born Canadian Essam Marzouk, who allegedly ran a training camp in Afghanistan, is imprisoned in Egypt for plotting to attack the U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan. Another Canadian, Abdurrahman Jabarah, was part of an operational cell in Saudi Arabia involved in the 2003 attack on a Western housing complex in Riyadh. While Abdurrahman Jabarah was later killed in a gun battle with Saudi security forces, his brother Mohammed Mansour Jabarah [7], a (Catholic) school graduate from Toronto, was allegedly in charge of significant al-Qaeda operations in Southeast Asia. He is accused of plotting the bombing of U.S. and Israeli Embassies in Singapore [8] and may have had foreknowledge of the Bali bombing. Native Kuwaitis, they are believed to have been personally recruited by Kuwaiti al-Qaeda spokesman, Suleyman Abu Ghaith. Another Kuwaiti and Afghan “alumni” is Vancouver resident Ahmad El-Maati. The alleged al-Qaeda operative is said to have planned the hijacking of an airliner in Canada in order to strike an undetermined target in the U.S.

The attacks in London by what appears to be a largely British-Pakistani cell hold many similarities to an earlier plot by Pakistani jihadists based both in Britain and Canada. In March 2004, a joint operation by British and Canadian law enforcement uncovered a transatlantic cell involving a computer engineer, Canadian-born Mohammed Momin Khawaja. [9] The suspect is said to have had a direct and “pivotal” role in plotting, along with nine other suspects, large-scale terrorist attacks in London. According to reliable reports, Khawaja had extensive links to Pakistani Islamist groups and the plot itself may be connected to the Zarqawi network."

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369755


----------



## Reccesoldier

Reilly, 

It is a curse of a free society that some in it will use those freedoms to promote hate, fear and mayhem.  

However, I'd rather live in that free society than impliment the kinds of limits that would be necessary to catch the miniscule few who mistreat our freedom for their perverse ends.


----------



## CdnArtyWife

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Reilly,
> 
> It is a curse of a free society that some in it will use those freedoms to promote hate, fear and mayhem.
> 
> However, I'd rather live in that free society than impliment the kinds of limits that would be necessary to catch the miniscule few who mistreat our freedom for their perverse ends.



+1


----------



## rifleman

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Reilly,
> 
> It is a curse of a free society that some in it will use those freedoms to promote hate, fear and mayhem.
> 
> However, I'd rather live in that free society than impliment the kinds of limits that would be necessary to catch the miniscule few who mistreat our freedom for their perverse ends.



I'd rather live in a free society that accepts that the cost of freedom will be that a miniscule few will take advantage of that freedom. Anyone that will allow limitations on that freedom without question do not deserve it...IMHO


----------



## GO!!!

rifleman said:
			
		

> I'd rather live in a free society that accepts that the cost of freedom will be that a miniscule few will take advantage of that freedom. Anyone that will allow limitations on that freedom without question do not deserve it...IMHO



What about when we question the "limit" and find it acceptable? 

I find it perfectly acceptable that Muslim and Arab men be thoroughly investigated before and after they visit, immigrate or otherwise enter this country, as a method of preserving the freedoms that currently exist here. I don't think sweeping generalisations in any direction really help us.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

I know this is a schooch to the side of the main topic on this thread, but I do see on this threat the idea of the tradeoff between security and liberty. 

It is old but still apt:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. 
     -Benjamin Franklin

     Terrorists have the ability to inflict horrible damage on us, but they can not even begin to destroy the infrastructure, institutions and the culture in which we live.  Only we have the power to do that.  I honestly believe that given enough time, some nut job somewhere will eventfully be able to do a terrorist act in Canada in the name of the Jihadist movement.  I just hope that in the backlash that will follow, my Country stays my Country. 

     How many people over the last 100 or 200 years have been killed by terrorists?  Lets include all wars that were 'wars of liberation' for example Ireland's And America's war of independence from Britain.  I know it is on the upper end of the body count to say a million.  That is a horrible number.  

     Now... over the past 100 hundred years alone, how many people have been killed by Governments that have temporally curtailed liberties for security reasons?  We can see what happened in China, in the former USSR, Germany, South Africa .... actually it isn't hard to come up with a really long list of countries with body counts that START in the millions.  I know in each of those countries there were people who thought "oh that is too much, that could never happen here, we’re just not that kind of people".  It doesn't take deep analysis to see which the greater threat is between a few explosions here and there or a government that has nothing holding it back.  

We often forget here how quickly oppression can overtake a country.  We are not inherently different from other democracy's that have fallen;  except in one respect, most of us were taught from very young age to not ever tolerate oppression in our own government.  How we face our enemies has little to do with them.  It is about who we are.  We know that we will be attacked, we are taking every step we can to prevent it, but we are also doing things that will not help and will simply undermine the culture we inherited.

     During World War 2, London was getting bombed quite heavily in an attempt to crush the fighting will of the English and to hurt the economy, after one bombing run, a store - I believe partially damaged - put out a sign that said "More open than ever".  That single act became almost an icon of will and determination; an icon for standing up and pressing forward with determination, dignity and grace.

     We look back on the bravery of those people with reverence.  How will those to come view us?  Will they say that we faced hardship unflinchingly?  Will they say that we fought evil without becoming evil? Will they thank us for giving them a country that has a stable government with checks and balances? Or will they look at us as the generation that last knew freedom and liberty?  Are we the last generation to not fear our own government? History shows us that trading personal liberties for security doesn't work;  it isn't a slippery slope,  it is free-fall.  If the terrorists truly did want to "destroy freedom" they never could succeed unless we help them.


-
I do apologise for that mini-essay,  but people accepting "limits" and giving more "power" to a smaller pool of people who don't have restrainst/checkls put on them isn't the slow road to hell,  is is the four lane super highway to dictatorship.


----------



## warspite

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I do apologise for that mini-essay,  but people accepting "limits" and giving more "power" to a smaller pool of people who don't have restrainst/checkls put on them isn't the slow road to hell,  is is the four lane super highway to dictatorship.


No apology necessary that was a very well done mini-essay.
Your points on infrastructure and how things can change in a minute were very good.


> terrorists have the ability to inflict horrible damage on us, but they can not even begin to destroy the infrastructure, institutions and the culture in which we live


But I do wonder, you say that terrorists can't really put a dent in our infrastructure. That may be when 15 radical fools decide to blow up a building but think about this scenario.

--If 1 man let's say... places a small bomb at the base of a hydro line he can cut power to a whole city.(This is fact, it can be done by shooting at the insulators atop the lines. Happened in B.C. once. Shut down McKenzie)

In this scenario a terrorist organization slowly filters people in over a month or so
--Now if lets say 15 people strategically blew up paticular point's along the hydro lines all around B.C. he could effectively cut off power to the whole province.
--At the same time lets say another 100 people around the province sabatoge local generators and power stations and so forth, blowing up a few telephone poles and their power lines etc. in every city preventing any restoring of backup power.
--And another 100 take out bridges around the province

At this point B.C. is without power or transportation. Things start getting pretty bleak.
--Anarchy sets in, looting a pillaging take order of the day, emergency servvices unable to respond.
--During the confusion the above hundred plus lets say 500 more are told to attack other utilities, water etc.
--Now province is in an extreme situation, now power, water or food is moving or available, sickness and desease spread, riots begin....
And so the story goes.....................

Now What if this similtanously were to occur around the rest of Canada. 
I've only acounted for 715 people to do this in B.C. so lets boost it to 1000 for arguements sake.
I'm pretty sure their are 1000 radical's who would be willing to try and pull it off if someone ever tried to get them together and organised.
Even assuming that two-thirds were caught the results would be devastating and cripple the province.

Now if this were to happen across Canada the results would really really hurt..... isn't this how they could collapse our infastructure... and with the infastructure... the goverment... and with the goverment.... Canada... and with Canada our culture?

Now I'm not argueing with you about freedoms and such, I love my country and don't want to bow to some dictator. It's only that you said that they could never dent our infastructure and I just don't agree with that.

*please excuse spelling the spell check is on the fritz


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Warspite,   I do have to say you found an exception to my argument really quickly.  Very nice.  :-D  I lived DT toronto during the last blackout.  In the first 4 hours people honestly thought it was a terrorist attack,  our powerlines are such an obvious target and such a sweet opening move for more attacks.  Also,  it wouldn't take them nearly that many people to bring down the grid for weeks - a few explosives on timers in key spots could do it.  A dedicated group of less than 10 people could set everything up inside of 2 months - including traveltime. (assuming they knew where to go and had materials... okay 3 months)

     The Powergrid could be kept down through delayed timers and boobytraps for a good two weeks at the most. I'm not one bit worried.  Like I said I lived in the DT core during the blackout,  I've never seen this city friendlier.  Most people most of the time are good,  and time and time again in emergencies we have shown what we are made of.  We are more than the sum of our roads, transport trucks, and the such. They can blow up buildings, bridges, powerlines and godforbid some of us,  but they can't destroy the fundamental infrastructure of our society.  I am referring to the rich heritage that we inherited of a just society. (Or at least one that knows to try to be just) Checks and balances, rule of law, the layers of departments and laws that actually do restrain those who seem to have power.   

     If the power went out for a Month,  we'd still be Canada.  The police would still arrest trouble makers and Judges would still let them off on technicalities (joking).  There would be economic repercussions for sure,  but a few government projects later (apparently new powerlines need to be made all over the place, and of course new roads and lets us not forget we'll have a boom in construction from all the fires from candles) and the economy is back on track.


----------



## GO!!!

Zell,

So your "defence" of our nation is basically that we are too large for the terrorists to do any meaningful damage?

That's a pretty weak solution to a serious problem. 

I know the Bible says to turn the other cheek, but let's be realistic here. What happens when all of the damage is fixed and we are back to our regularly scheduled lives? Wait for the water to be poisoned or a school to be taken over, a la Beslan? After all, we have hundreds of thousands of children, the terrorists can't possibly kill them all!  :

No, the defence of a nation starts abroad, and continues here. We must meet those who threaten us head on, with all of the technology, capabilities and laws that we can muster. Ignoring this problem will not make it go away, making the consequences of planning, aiding or perpetrating terrorism so terrible will though. No terrorists = no terrorism.


----------



## vonGarvin

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I know the Bible says to turn the other cheek


Just for clarification, "turn the other cheek" does not imply to simply roll over and let it happen, you know, take it like a beaten dog.  It's all contextual.  Back in the day (around 30 AD), if a socially higher person were to strike a slave or servant, they did it on the back hand.  If they struck a social equal (say landowner to landowner), they would use the fore hand.  So, the message was, after being stuck on the back hand, offer the other cheek, MAKE that "socially higher" person strike you on the forehand, that is, treat you like an equal.  So, the idiom doesn't really apply when dealing with terrorists in the manner of them striking you.

Anyway, back on target....


----------



## warrickdll

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> ...It is old but still apt:
> 
> They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> ...History shows us that trading personal liberties for security doesn't work;  it isn't a slippery slope,  it is free-fall.  If the terrorists truly did want to "destroy freedom" they never could succeed unless we help them.
> ...I do apologise for that mini-essay,  but people accepting "limits" and giving more "power" to a smaller pool of people who don't have restrainst/checkls put on them isn't the slow road to hell,  is is the four lane super highway to dictatorship.
> ...



Benny F. was ahead of his time. He certainly mastered the sound bite.

Liberty and freedom are not total. We rely on others to follow restrictions on their liberties. A red light would be pretty useless at an intersection if everyone exercised complete freedom. Laws are restrictions on freedom; and there are few advocates of a lawless society.

The earliest civilizations had laws: The Babylonians (Hammurabi), the Ancient Egyptians, and the earlier Sumerians all had laws. Even loose tribal societies have always had laws (usually wrapped as customs), and it is from these arcane beginnings that the system of laws derives from. What I'm getting at is that we have always, and will always, have restrictions on our freedom.


The problem with stating that a restriction on our freedom is a victory for the terrorist is that it locks down the possible responses that the civilized world can take. If we had more freedoms, and were allowed to board aircraft without any screening, would we be *more* free? Would allowing terrorists to walk onboard with guns and explosives prove how much *we* were winning?

We see the same self defeating logic from T.J. Layton's crowd when it comes to CF casualties: Each Canadian casket is met with "We must retreat!", "The Taliban are omnipotent!", "The war is unwinnable!", "Where do I sign up to surrender?". 

Seeing every casualty as a defeat puts unmanageable stress on the mission and brings about its own failure: 

	- If every task has the risk of casualties. 
	- And all casualties are unacceptable.
	- Then no tasks can be completed.
	- And the mission fails. The enemy wins.

This same logical trap is sometimes applied to our freedoms:

	- If every defence against terrorism curtails some freedom. 
	- And all restrictions on freedom are unacceptable.
	- Then no defence can be undertaken.
	- And the mission fails. The enemy wins.

We live in a modern civilized society, and so we take our freedoms and our lives seriously (as we should). We should always question why we have restrictions, and why we have casualties, but if everything were sacrosanct then we would be nothing more than a Fixed Target for the enemy.


I share your concerns about those in power, but fundamentalism is our enemy, not our ally. We should allow ourselves some flexibility in order to achieve victory.

Creatures like Al Qaeda have not killed us all only because our people are ensuring that the enemy continues to lack the means - you shouldn't just look at the body count and assume that fundamentalist terrorism is a manageable risk.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Zell,
> 
> So your "defence" of our nation is basically that we are too large for the terrorists to do any meaningful damage?
> 
> That's a pretty weak solution to a serious problem.



I was trying to point out that  while they can do serious damage (I can't argue that) it pales in comparison to the damage we are starting to inflict on ourselves.  I was saying that we as a society can endure this,  and much worse, as long as we stay true the the values, heritage and traditions we have been bless with.  The taliban can't come here and force us to become torturers,  only we can turn us into that.  Al-qaida can't storm Parliament and pass legislation forcing the government to hold people indefinitely without trial.  Suicide bombers can't force us to  fundamentally redefine who and what we are.  Only we can do that.   I know I'm making broad esoteric comments,  but in reality who and what we are as a country is more than bricks, mortar and power lines.

     I'm not disputing that we need good protection against those who would harm us.  But I am saying that if we are really living in such dangerous times,  doesn't it make sense to cling to that which has traditionally kept us safe?  Rule of law,  good government and checks and balances on power.  Besides,  it is very questionable how effective some of the more unpleasant measures used by our Allies is in fighting terror.  The bulk of the information used to justify the war in Iraq came from torture - we all know how accurate that turned out to be.  

     I respect the desire for safety,  I understand the need for more to be done to keep us safe.  But stripping away our liberties,  removing checks/balances on power, paving over the rule of law and the new willingness to use information received from torture provides very little in the way of actual security and poses a much bigger threat than anything any terrorist could do.


----------



## rifleman

GO!!! said:
			
		

> What about when we question the "limit" and find it acceptable?
> 
> I find it perfectly acceptable that Muslim and Arab men be thoroughly investigated before and after they visit, immigrate or otherwise enter this country, as a method of preserving the freedoms that currently exist here. I don't think sweeping generalisations in any direction really help us.



You must have forgot your smiley face cause you can't be serious.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I was trying to point out that  while they can do serious damage (I can't argue that) it pales in comparison to the damage we are starting to inflict on ourselves.  I was saying that we as a society can endure this,  and much worse, as long as we stay true the the values, heritage and traditions we have been bless with.  The taliban can't come here and force us to become torturers,  only we can turn us into that.  Al-qaida can't storm Parliament and pass legislation forcing the government to hold people indefinitely without trial.  Suicide bombers can't force us to  fundamentally redefine who and what we are.  Only we can do that.   I know I'm making broad esoteric comments,  but in reality who and what we are as a country is more than bricks, mortar and power lines.
> 
> I'm not disputing that we need good protection against those who would harm us.  But I am saying that if we are really living in such dangerous times,  doesn't it make sense to cling to that which has traditionally kept us safe?  Rule of law,  good government and checks and balances on power.  Besides,  it is very questionable how effective some of the more unpleasant measures used by our Allies is in fighting terror.  The bulk of the information used to justify the war in Iraq came from torture - we all know how accurate that turned out to be.
> 
> I respect the desire for safety,  I understand the need for more to be done to keep us safe.  But stripping away our liberties,  removing checks/balances on power, paving over the rule of law *and the new willingness to use information received from torture provides very little in the way of actual security and poses a much bigger threat than anything any terrorist could do.*



Zell, 

There was an analysis paper released about 2-weeks ago that I'll have to see if I can find that broke down the domino effect of waterboarding and let's just say your statement is 100% false.  "Torture"/"Psychological Stress Techniques of Interrogation" in combination with Echelon-type programs of Communication Interception and Signals Interception (another ACLU favourite) have been the linchpins to our success of being able to catch these bastards as individuals, and not have to take more punitive action against larger muslim populations.

As a final note, airport security can use see-thru X-ray systems on myself, my wife, my children every damned time I choose to get on a plane, if it makes us collectively safer.  I find it insulting and blatantly selfish that other people are unwilling to make such sacrifices and because of that I am less safe.


Matthew.


----------



## GO!!!

rifleman said:
			
		

> You must have forgot your smiley face cause you can't be serious.



Of course I'm serious. 

There is a single demographic group who has been responsible for attacks in New York (x2), London, Madrid, Bali, throughout the secular Arab world and attempted attacks here in Canada, which we were fortunate enough to foil with the help of an informant.

Are you seriously implying that the next terrorist attacks here in Canada are likely to come from someone else? Who?


----------



## George Wallace

To add to GO!!!'s comments, and counter the Civil Libertarians, I would say that we need more restrictions to maintain a Safe and Free Society here in Canada.  

You have the Freedom to come to Canada and live by our Rules and Laws, or you have the Freedom to live somewhere else in the World that meets your personal beliefs.  If you don't want to follow the Rules and Laws, then you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the Law.  Rather simple really.

Deja vu......We have been here before.


----------



## rifleman

Well I guess it goes both ways....Those who need more restrictions to feel safe can always go somewhere else


----------



## George Wallace

rifleman said:
			
		

> Well I guess it goes both ways....Those who need more restrictions to feel safe can always go somewhere else



So your proposal is that Canadians leave Canada, because Immigrants don't want to abide by the Rules and Laws that Canadians have developed since pre-Confederation?  Let's give up and leave it to those who want to bring the environments that they are fleeing from to our country and convert us?  Absolutely Brilliant!  But you are correct.....that is what Freedom is all about.


----------



## GO!!!

rifleman said:
			
		

> Well I guess it goes both ways....Those who need more restrictions to feel safe can always go somewhere else



Apparently, freedom is also about being sickeningly passive and meek, and never fighting to preserve something worthwhile - like our nation and what it stands for. 

You leave for your anarchistic utopia, where everyone is free to do as they wish. My country is worth saving with restrictions on demonstrably adversarial groups.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So your proposal is that Canadians leave Canada, because Immigrants don't want to abide by the Rules and Laws that Canadians have developed since pre-Confederation?  Let's give up and leave it to those who want to bring the environments that they are fleeing from to our country and convert us?  Absolutely Brilliant!  But you are correct.....that is what Freedom is all about.



     George,   I don't think I'm following you. :-S (Which is not surprising,  I'm kinda slow :clown  Which laws do some immigrants not want to follow? My family came here a few generations ago, as refugees from the wars (yup I'm Irish). Are you saying that because my family raised me with Irish values (bringing the environment they were fleeing from) that I am not as Canadian as others might be?  

     Over the years I've had allot of people try to convert me,  Jehovah’s,  Muslims, Christians and I even have had a few prodding jokes from my Jewish friends about my impending conversion.  Are these well intentioned people part of the problem that should be stopped by increased security restrictions? What restrictions can be put on ‘converting people’? What are the behaviors we are trying to stop and how effective would legal restrictions in this case be?

     Earlier in this thread people were saying we need to increase the restrictions for more security.  I understand the sentiment but I think of this the same way I understand people when they say "tough on crime". - It is to vague to have real meaning.  Can I ask for specific things that we should do that we are not?  I only ask because if we keep the conversation on the esoteric level of 'freedom vs. security' the debate is only in how you say things.  Where as if I was to say "Information gathered from torture has proven time and again to be unreliable and the use of torture not only flies in the face of what we as a people are supposed to stand for, it ensures not just hatred against us but justification for that hatred".  That is a meaty issue that we can dig into. (I wish I could say no pun intended, but it was)  Or I could say that “Canada has a legal and moral obligation to protect its citizens from outrages on their dignity and for us to be sitting back while our citizens are being tortured for information in our allies gulags it doesn’t just represent a breach of faith and law (pre and post-confederation) it also represents a justification for terrorist actions against us."

     Now on the issue of laws that have existed pre-confederation.  Habeas corpus is a great example.  http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm  Now the right to face your accuser and examine/question the evidence against you has been curtailed because it can fall into the category of national security. This has been done with many checks and independent reviews of the process.  In my humble opinion this is a safe temporary measure – for now.  The program needs to be very closely monitored for abuses because it is a very small step from a legitimate program for security to a tool used against a group of people for other reasons than the original intent.

     CdnBlackShirt,  allot (if not most) of the information used to justify the war in Iraq – for example the yellow cake (yum – better with icing) from Africa – was gained through torture.  How reliable was that information?  I know myself I’d say anything to appease the person water boarding me or doing other unpleasent things.  It isn’t that I’m a weak or principle-less person,  I just know that unless I kill myself during the torture (something a professional wouldn’t let me do) I will eventually break.  Everyone can be broken.  Here not to long ago it was information given to us by the local community that stopped our own “Oklahoma city” style bombing. If we loose the faith and goodwill of that community our chances of preventing future attacks drops significantly. (In my opinion of course)


----------



## rifleman

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Apparently, freedom is also about being sickeningly passive and meek, and never fighting to preserve something worthwhile - like our nation and what it stands for.
> 
> You leave for your anarchistic utopia, where everyone is free to do as they wish. My country is worth saving with restrictions on demonstrably adversarial groups.



My country is equally worth saving without going down the road making blanket restrictions that do nothing to address the actual issue. Yes, be active in persuing those who wish to us harm however don't target everyone based on their race or religion or how they look. Go to war when other means haven't worked.

Heck we go your way, I propose to prevent school shootings, we should ban all firearms from the general populace, then we just have to worry about criminals having a gun.

and btw anarchy doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, it means you don't require an authoritative body to create rules. Rules that do exist, exist through mutual concent


----------



## rifleman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So your proposal is that Canadians leave Canada, because Immigrants don't want to abide by the Rules and Laws that Canadians have developed since pre-Confederation?  Let's give up and leave it to those who want to bring the environments that they are fleeing from to our country and convert us?  Absolutely Brilliant!  But you are correct.....that is what Freedom is all about.



Where did I ever say that?

I am a Canadian and my rules and laws say Canada doesn't appreciate laws that target a specific race or gender. We demand proof that someone is guilty of something and that proof must be obtained within the confines of our laws. So if someone wants to act that way immigrant or citizen, I'll take the hardline intolerant view and say 'there countries that accept that and  they are welcome to go there.' 

As for the conversion attempts, I do get a little disturbed when a JW comes to the door early on a saturday morning, but it sure beats being burned at the stake.


----------



## warrickdll

rifleman said:
			
		

> ...
> and btw anarchy doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, it means you don't require an authoritative body to create rules. Rules that do exist, exist through mutual concent



Just a quibble, but:

Without a means to enforce rules then all you have are parables, not laws. General consensus (continuous referendum) only works in ridiculously small groups of people; it is not a means to handle day-to-day laws in a society.


----------



## rifleman

Iterator said:
			
		

> Just a quibble, but:
> 
> Without a means to enforce rules then all you have are parables, not laws. General consensus (continuous referendum) only works in ridiculously small groups of people; it is not a means to handle day-to-day laws in a society.



Aren't parables stories? and consent doesn't neccessarily mean by referendum (i.e I generally don't go punching people in the face and I didn't adopt that rule because we held a vote on it)


----------



## warspite

rifleman said:
			
		

> Heck we go your way, I propose to prevent school shootings, we should ban all firearms from the general populace, then we just have to worry about criminals having a gun


Your going overboard here. Laws do not have to be all encompassing like that.  


> and btw anarchy doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, it means you don't require an authoritative body to create rules. Rules that do exist, exist through mutual concent


Anarchy is a joke, it cannot work. I had a delightful argument so very long ago about anarchy on a different thread. I learned that anarchy is a" society without classes". Or as I have just learned....


			
				rifleman said:
			
		

> and btw anarchy doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, it means you don't require an authoritative body to create rules. Rules that do exist, exist through mutual concent


So how exactly does this work? oh..... wait a minute... *IT DOESN'T*.  Let me give an example, in this case a highschool.
  Lets look at a your average highschool. It's a couple hundred kids from many different parts of town, from many different cultures, and from many different backgrounds.  In short a bit like Canada on a much smaller scale.   Now a school is governed by the principle, vice principle, teachers, counselors, Secretaries etc.....
  Now lets say that we removed this administration from the school, all the students have to still go to the school but they no longer have any administrators. Well by anarchy's definition all these students should work together by mutual consent, set down rules all get along and sing Kumbya. But this is not what would happen. This is:
 -The school would first split into many factions of maybe 10-15 people each. So for a student body of 1700 you would get roughly 113 groups.
 -At first these factions would get along and keep to themselves. There would be a few fights between people, after all there is no longer anyone to administer punishment for fighting so fighting is the best way to solve problems. At this point the school is falling into disrepair, after all no one to maintain it.
 -Next the school begins to become polarized. Factions begin to gather in areas with others like them and start to melt together. Inside the factions hierarchies begin to form through opinions and violence. Fights have become more widespread but still remain on a person to person basis, but resentment begins to form between different factions.
 -Now certain parts of the school are much more desireable than others. The stronger factions begin to force their way into these area's forcing other factions out. At the same time more and more factions keep melting together, wether with others forced out into the cold wet parts of the school or with the stronger ones in the warmer dryer interior. Personal fights now a way of life, violence between factions begins growing at an alarming rate.
-School now in open conflict. naturally the stronger fations wipe out and assimilate the weaker ones. Then they begin to turn on themselves. Eventually one prevails and ends up controlling the school through violence and a definite class structure begins to form with the strong at the top and the weak and those who are different down at the bottom. 

So in the end anarchy's utopia has become basically a dictatorship where the strong rule by their might and the weak have no other choice than to bow down and keep quiet. If my government wants to place a few laws to keep Canada intact and Strong, to prevent anarchy and the results that follow it. I say all the power to them.


----------



## rifleman

Look if you are gonna attack a view because you don't neccessarily agree with, actually take the time to read it.

My comments started in essence with I would rather accept the fact that bad things are going to happen than to restrict my freedoms. I am not an anarchist and do not subscribe to any one ideal that alot have tried to paint me with. I was pointing out that I find it unacceptable to target one race or religon. I do not believe in being passive and I will most certainly roll over everytime someone says they are doing this for my own safety. I will not fight terror with terror but demonstrate through my action that what I believe Canada is all about is what is right.

Why is it that the same person who can easily say "I couldn't care less if all of one demographic is targeted as a potential terrorist because some terrorists are that demographic" be the same one to argue that guns in the hands of seemingly law-abiding citizen shouldn't be thought of as a potential school house shooter? Thats another thing I fight against, inconsisitency and hypocrisy

Not that I am professing the removal of all guns..How about I put my opinion in this context: 

I will take the chance that I could (even accidently) be shot by some law-abiding citizen in order for all citizens to have the opportunity of owning a gun. Gotta love it


----------



## GO!!!

You are missing the point Rifleman.

Laws do not have to be sweeping or restrictive for the whole population.

Let's say, for example, we enact a law at a point in time, in which a certain demographic has a demonstrated propensity for violence on a large scale. This violence is perpetrated with the purpoted aim of fundamentally changing the society that we live in, forcing political change through violence, and adheres to a common ideology which is clearly articulated, even though many of the nuances of it differ.

Is it really an infringement on the rights of all Canadians to force this group to state the reasons that they require firearms, 10 "lost" passports a year and truckloads of fertiliser? Of course not. *You* have to differentiate between persecution and vigilance. If and when the current threat abates (and it will), we had the foresight to have renewals written into the law, so that it would simply slide into obsolescence and no longer apply, and at some point the time period would expire, and the law would no longer exist.

If you ask any police officer, (off camera of course) if racial profiling works, he will give you an emphatic "yes". We need to stop this charade of using civil liberties to shield our enemies in our own country from prosecution, when we know who they are and what they are up to.


----------



## rifleman

Not missing the point at all. 

Ok then enact a law saying terrorists are wrong....wait there there are such laws .. don't hide under that most terrorists are a certain race or religion to harass the other 90%....bottom line.  

If you have to ask someone something off-camera then usually it isn't supported


----------



## GO!!!

rifleman said:
			
		

> Not missing the point at all.
> 
> Ok then enact a law saying terrorists are wrong....wait there there are such laws .. don't hide under that most terrorists are a certain race or religion to harass the other 90%....bottom line.


*Vigilance does not equal harassment .*

Is it harassment that I was pulled over in a checkstop last night and breathalysed - even though I was below the legal limit? Of course not! I was a twentysomething male driving a nice SUV away from a rowdy nightclub at one in the morning on friday night. 

Are only 10% of the people on the road at one in the morning drunk? Maybe, but does that make it unreasonable to stop every vehicle in an effort to catch them? Of course not. It is a good law that requires large numbers of people to be inconvenienced for the greater good.

*The bottom line * is that we as citizens of this nation should not have to be in fear of our lives so that a certain demographic can feel that they are not being surveiled more than anyone else. 

My life trumps their feelings, full stop.



> If you have to ask someone something off-camera then usually it isn't supported



.....by their Chain of Command or the lefties that they work for. We all know that the realities on the ground floor are not always what the upper levels choose to acknowledge. IMHO, most cops could clean out their respective towns and nighbourhoods in a week or two if they licence to do so.


----------



## armyvern

rifleman said:
			
		

> If you have to ask someone something off-camera then usually it isn't supported



El toro poo poo. I just means that the honest answer won't be 'politiclly correct'.


----------



## rifleman

Actually I don't believe that you should be stopped just for being 29 and owning a nice car. Vigilence in that case is having more police out at 2 am and watching for sweaving cars. I for one don't fear for my life when driving at night, I am vigilant buy watching for the other drivers, particularly those sober ones that have a cell phone in their face.

and if what you believe is correct and is supported by the facts , what are you afraid of? Don't use anti-'political correctness' as a crutch.


----------



## GO!!!

rifleman said:
			
		

> Actually I don't believe that you should be stopped just for being 29 and owning a nice car. Vigilence in that case is having more police out at 2 am and watching for sweaving cars. I for one don't fear for my life when driving at night, I am vigilant buy watching for the other drivers, particularly those sober ones that have a cell phone in their face.


Then you and I have a very different interpretation of the term "vigilance", which leads to the inconvenient (for you) truth.

Checkstops, although a nuisance, keep drunks off the road by taking their licences away and punishing them. Furthermore, they provide a deterrent effect against others who may perpetrate the same crime. In the end, we are all better off, as a society, because we don't have to worry about a small minority of the population endagering our lives by being dumb.

I'm calling you out on this one - are you stating that we would be better served, as a society, if the police were not permitted to stop and question people as to their state of mind at night? How? 

This same logic can be applied to terrorism. We know who the people are, we know how they act, we know their preferred targets and goals. Increasing surveillance on the demographics in question _especially_ when they are engaged in activities that would be considered routine for the general population, may not be for this group. 

An example of this is the recent arrests of a group of men in Ontario on terrorism related charges. Their activities (running around in the woods with high powered rifles and camoflage) were very suspicious. Having said that, my friends and I often perform the same (in broad strokes) activity, only we do it with hunting licences for deer. 

Activity must be viewed through the lens of demography to prevent the waste of investigative resources on individuals and groups with a low probability to commit a crime.



> and if what you believe is correct and is supported by the facts , what are you afraid of? Don't use anti-'political correctness' as a crutch.



Unfortunately, opposition to political correctness and common sense often share common ground.

Another example. The safest airline on earth is El Al, the Israeli national carrier. You would do well to research their security measures - the ones that made them the safest airline, and explain why they are incorrect.  When you find it impossible, state why please.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Well obviously there is a tradeoff between personal liberties and public safety.  Who can argue that?  I just think that we are crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed and giving up things we paid to high a price to get.  It is easier to give up a right than it is to get it back.  We have faced things far scarier than these guys,  I don't believe that we need to undo what we have cultivated for centuries.  We need to fight evil without becoming it. (Corny but true)  If/when we are attacked there will be a huge push for "safety" anything for "safety"  We need to guard against those who would take advantage of that,  as has happened in other places. (Pardon the dramatic tone,  I'm humorless when it comes to fundamental human rights and how we are now compromising on them)   :warstory:


----------



## rifleman

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Then you and I have a very different interpretation of the term "vigilance", which leads to the inconvenient (for you) truth.



vigilant - "alertly watchful especially to avoid danger". <- Apparently my definition and Webster's
Have no clue what the inconvenient truth comment is all about



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I'm calling you out on this one - are you stating that we would be better served, as a society, if the police were not permitted to stop and question people as to their state of mind at night? How?



The corollary is how does police stopping me at night for no reason do anything to serve society?



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> This same logic can be applied to terrorism. We know who the people are, we know how they act, we know their preferred targets and goals. Increasing surveillance on the demographics in question _especially_ when they are engaged in activities that would be considered routine for the general population, may not be for this group.
> 
> An example of this is the recent arrests of a group of men in Ontario on terrorism related charges. Their activities (running around in the woods with high powered rifles and camoflage) were very suspicious. Having said that, my friends and I often perform the same (in broad strokes) activity, only we do it with hunting licences for deer.
> 
> Activity must be viewed through the lens of demography to prevent the waste of investigative resources on individuals and groups with a low probability to commit a crime.



There is a big difference between some one who chooses an activity that could be deemed a percuser to terrorist activity and being a certain race. Again I ask, do we ban all citizens from owning firearms so that anyone who has one can be deemed up to no good?



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, opposition to political correctness and common sense often share common ground.



Unfortunatlely, common sense isn't all that common and oppostion to political correctness is all too often use as a crutch.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Another example. The safest airline on earth is El Al, the Israeli national carrier. You would do well to research their security measures - the ones that made them the safest airline, and explain why they are incorrect.  When you find it impossible, state why please.



It is impossible, as I am not in Isreal and have no desire to move there. But if  people would feel safer there, perhaps its the place to be.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Rifleman, 

Do you or do you not acknowledge that greater than 95% of the current terrorist strikes against western targets are committed by males of Arab or South Asian descent between the ages of 18-40?

Now what percentage are committed by White, Black or Oriental grandmothers?

Bottom Line:  Pretending that all racial/gender/age demographics are equally likely to be terrorists is downright stupid and allocates resources in ways that dramatically increase the likelihood of the bad guys killing large numbers of our citizens.  

It isn't politically-correct, but it's reality....


Matthew.


----------



## vonGarvin

I also note on some crime shows that when profiles based on certain crimes are made, a potential suspect is usually described in terms of gender, age group, income and social status.
For example: "I'd say it's a white male, 30-45 years old, lower middle class, doesn't relate well with strangers".  Usually (but not always), they are correct.
As for saying "always", well, you're going to hit a dead end.  Tim McVeigh proved that back in the 90s when he blew up the Federal Building in the US.


----------



## rifleman

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Rifleman,
> 
> Do you or do you not acknowledge that greater than 95% of the current terrorist strikes against western targets are committed by males of Arab or South Asian descent between the ages of 18-40?
> 
> Now what percentage are committed by White, Black or Oriental grandmothers?
> 
> Bottom Line:  Pretending that all racial/gender/age demographics are equally likely to be terrorists is downright stupid and allocates resources in ways that dramatically increase the likelihood of the bad guys killing large numbers of our citizens.
> 
> It isn't politically-correct, but it's reality....
> 
> 
> Matthew.



I wasn't aware that all the Arab and South Asian Males between 18-40 were doing Terrorist acts. I also be very surprised if many grandmothers were involved in terrorist acts in North America. 

Are you aware that 100% of people who shoot someone had a gun in their possession at the time? 

You are right it isn't politically-correct. In fact its legally-wrong. 

Where do people get that I am proposing that we treat everyone equally bad? 

I just stated earlier on that I am willing to accept the risk that something may happen rather then slip down the slope where we start harasing people just because of thier race or religion but apparently I've stirred up all the anti-left and anti-rights crowd who find a need to show me the errors of my ways


----------



## rifleman

von Grognard said:
			
		

> I also note on some crime shows that when profiles based on certain crimes are made, a potential suspect is usually described in terms of gender, age group, income and social status.
> For example: "I'd say it's a white male, 30-45 years old, lower middle class, doesn't relate well with strangers".  Usually (but not always), they are correct.
> As for saying "always", well, you're going to hit a dead end.  Tim McVeigh proved that back in the 90s when he blew up the Federal Building in the US.



Perhaps if they weren't looking at terrorists as being one colour or race they might have seen clues Timmy was a potential? Just saying


----------



## Kirkhill

rifleman:

I abhor absolutes.  For me the world is a matter of probabilities.  If I put my hand in scalding water the probability is pretty high I will get burned.  On the other hand if I put the hand in and pull it out quickly enough the probability is that I won't get burned.  The problem I have is that I don't know how hot the water is, how fast I have to move or if I can move that fast.  So on balance I generally choose not to put my hand in scalding water and avoid the risk completely.  That's just me though.

100% of South Asian and Arab males between 18 and 40 living in Canada do not commit terrorist acts.  In fact I would be horrified if the number was over 0.1% of the total.
It isn't possible to say that 100% of White Males will not commit violent acts, nor that some of them will commit those acts because of some religious or political belief.
It also isn't possible to say that no white, 90 year old grandmother will decide to blow herself up one day in a final act of solidarity with Hamas.
On the balance of probabilities however I choose to be less concerned about 90 year old grannies than White males and white males than South Asian males.  Granny is not a significant threat.  White males are a significant threat but I stay out of high risk areas at high risk times of the day and in any event I am not likely to encounter a gang-banger with a nuclear device.  Arab males are probably no more likely to be violent than White males but while the white male may express his anger with a beer bottle it seems to be a risk of a different order of magnitude where there is the potential for a nuclear device to be involved.  (Not that I am expecting to bump into a drunken Arab on Hastings and disappear in a mushroom cloud).
The issue is risk management and probabilities.

I note that you say that you are willing to accept the risk "of something" rather than slide down a slippery slope.

You are a soldier so I assume that you are willing to accept the personal risk to yourself.  You may even believe that you can likely deal with most personal risks personally.  On those grounds it is unlikely that a personal threat will bother you.  

Most people also are quite willing to accept risk to the broader others in the abstract.  The broader and more abstract the greater the propensity to be willing to accept risk on behalf of people you will never meet.  The risk is theirs.  Not yours.

The problem that I find is when the ground is defined in the "3rd Party Personal".  The threat is not to you personally - I believe there are many heroes out there that willingly accept personal risk on the basis of their principles.  Likewise I accept that most people just don't connect to the world at large and so are willing to accept abstract risk (like the risk of being a tornado victim) on behalf of others.

However when the problem becomes being willing to accept risk on behalf of your mother, father, siblings, spouse, children, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws (OK that may be an exception), friends......are you willing to sacrifice them for your principles?  I have met many women (amongst my relatives and elsewhere) who deplore violence and capital punishment, and are generally of a pacifist nature, but when asked if they would stand by and watch their children shot while they stood on principle the answer is of course not.  (By the way the same pacifists, at least in my extended clan, are usually in favour of castration without anaesthetics for rapists.)

So, to you again, just to be clear, if not focussing effort on the high risk situation increases the risk to your immediate family are you still willing to accept that increased risk that they may die a violent death as a result of your principled stand?


----------



## rifleman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> rifleman:
> 
> I abhor absolutes.  For me the world is a matter of probabilities.  If I put my hand in scalding water the probability is pretty high I will get burned.  On the other hand if I put the hand in and pull it out quickly enough the probability is that I won't get burned.  The problem I have is that I don't know how hot the water is, how fast I have to move or if I can move that fast.  So on balance I generally choose not to put my hand in scalding water and avoid the risk completely.  That's just me though.



What if they were to enact a law forbiding the heating of water so that you do not have to have any risk of burning yourself?



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You are a soldier so I assume that you are willing to accept the personal risk to yourself.  You may even believe that you can likely deal with most personal risks personally.  On those grounds it is unlikely that a personal threat will bother you.
> 
> Most people also are quite willing to accept risk to the broader others in the abstract.  The broader and more abstract the greater the propensity to be willing to accept risk on behalf of people you will never meet.  The risk is theirs.  Not yours.
> 
> The problem that I find is when the ground is defined in the "3rd Party Personal".  The threat is not to you personally - I believe there are many heroes out there that willingly accept personal risk on the basis of their principles.  Likewise I accept that most people just don't connect to the world at large and so are willing to accept abstract risk (like the risk of being a tornado victim) on behalf of others.
> 
> However when the problem becomes being willing to accept risk on behalf of your mother, father, siblings, spouse, children, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws (OK that may be an exception), friends......are you willing to sacrifice them for your principles?  I have met many women (amongst my relatives and elsewhere) who deplore violence and capital punishment, and are generally of a pacifist nature, but when asked if they would stand by and watch their children shot while they stood on principle the answer is of course not.  (By the way the same pacifists, at least in my extended clan, are usually in favour of castration without anaesthetics for rapists.)
> 
> So, to you again, just to be clear, if not focussing effort on the high risk situation increases the risk to your immediate family are you still willing to accept that increased risk that they may die a violent death as a result of your principled stand?



If you don't stand for principles whats the point?  Are you asking whether I am willing to stand by and sacrifice others to protect my family?  Heck no.

Are you saying I should use any means neccesary including the very tactics that we abhor in our society.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Are you asking whether I am willing to stand by and sacrifice others to protect my family?  Heck no.



Funny.  I am.  But then that's just me.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

rifleman said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that all the Arab and South Asian Males between 18-40 were doing Terrorist acts. I also be very surprised if many grandmothers were involved in terrorist acts in North America.



That is an absurd strawman argument.  If you're going to argue something, at least act like you're older than 12.

We all know that those who do commit terrorist acts are a tiny percentage of our overall population.  It would however seem astute that we look at what factors those that do participate in attacks have in common so that when applying scarce resources, we dramatically improve our chance of detection and interdiction.

Quite honestly, I don't give a rat's ass if you're offended by that....it's common sense....and for you to deny the application of a common sense approach exponentially increases the likelihood of the success of our enemies.  



> Are you aware that 100% of people who shoot someone had a gun in their possession at the time?



Another strawman argument.  How many were legally licensed guns versus illegal imports? 



> You are right it isn't politically-correct. In fact its legally-wrong.



Other than spelling, *it's* also silly to put the threat of terrorism into the same category as law enforcement.  It is a fifth column of people who are dedicated to killing and maiming as many Canadiand as they can and their current citizenship is merely facade as their primary identity, especially to themselves is as a Jihadi owing loyalty only to Allah.



> Where do people get that I am proposing that we treat everyone equally bad?



Why is surveillance bad?  CSIS can monitor 100% of my activities between now and the day I die and I couldn't care less.  Know why?  *Because I never spend time planning on killing my fellow citizens because I think they're infidels and it's my God's wish!*

Bottom Line:  Just like putting closed circuit television sets on streets, surveillance just shines a light on those doing things they shouldn't.  Those that are just trying to get by have nothing to fear.



> I just stated earlier on that I am willing to accept the risk that something may happen rather then slip down the slope where we start harasing people just because of thier race or religion but apparently I've stirred up all the anti-left and anti-rights crowd who find a need to show me the errors of my ways



This isn't about the anti-left/anti-rights crowd.  It's about the fact that grown-ups know that everything we do is series of compromises.  No one would want this surveillance if we didn't believe it likely could be the difference in saving potentially thousands of lives.  And so whilst I understand your hope for an ideal, I simply ask you to weigh that against the 1,000 dead and maimed Canadians in a Toronto or Montreal Subway station, or large building collapsed by a truck bomb....because that's what's on the line.



Matthew.   

P.S.  If you don't have time to read an entire book on the topic, I suggest you read the attached:  http://www.policyreview.org/139/rosenthal.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

rifleman said:
			
		

> What if they were to enact a law forbiding the heating of water so that you do not have to have any risk of burning yourself?
> 
> If you don't stand for principles whats the point?  Are you asking whether I am willing to stand by and sacrifice others to protect my family?  Heck no.
> 
> Are you saying I should use any means neccesary including the very tactics that we abhor in our society.



1. Gee, laws ALWAYS work.
2. To protect my children........I'd sacrifice ya in a heartbeat.
3.  What kind of 'leap' was that? Wow, some stretching of others words there.


----------



## Rodahn

The unfortunate thing is the Osama has noted Canada as a target in one of his speeches.... And unfortunately they (Al Qaeda) have managed to eventually hit the targets that Osama has mentioned in his hit lists. Does this make Canada a target?? I would say so........


----------



## vonGarvin

rifleman said:
			
		

> Perhaps if they weren't looking at terrorists as being one colour or race they might have seen clues Timmy was a potential? Just saying


No, I don't think so.  When you have only so many assets, and let's say you were looking for potential terrorists getting on a plane.  Any plane, any day, anywhere in the US.  If you checked the old white lady, or the young black man, then you'd be wasting your time.  If there were three 20-35 year old middle eastern gentlemen, and you had info that SOMEONE was going to blow up the plane, and that someone was going to be on the plane when it blew up, you can bet dollars to doughnuts that those three middle eastern gentlemen would be checked first.
This doesn't mean that they are the ones, but you'd be pretty stupid to check the old white lady and the young black man first, IMHO.

As for McVeigh, he belonged (IIRC) to some radical "michigan militia" group, and as a result of that, he fit the bill for a terrorist.  It's not just race, but to discount race as a factor at all is dangerous, stupid and well, dangerous!


----------



## vonGarvin

rifleman said:
			
		

> Are you aware that 100% of people who shoot someone had a gun in their possession at the time?


Wrong
Some have rifles.
Others have cameras.
Take me, for example.  Yesterday I shot my kids.  The photos are excellent in spite of my lack of skills in photography.


----------



## rifleman

von Grognard said:
			
		

> Wrong
> Some have rifles.
> Others have cameras.
> Take me, for example.  Yesterday I shot my kids.  The photos are excellent in spite of my lack of skills in photography.



You are truly correct


----------



## Rodahn

von Grognard said:
			
		

> Wrong
> Some have rifles.
> Others have cameras.
> Take me, for example.  Yesterday I shot my kids.  The photos are excellent in spite of my lack of skills in photography.



+100 An excellent turn of phrase.....


----------



## Rodahn

'Are you aware that 100% of people who shoot someone had a gun in their possession at the time?'

And they would shoot somebody with something other than a gun/rifle/pistol how??????


----------



## medicineman

Bow and arrow perhaps? ;D

MM


----------



## George Wallace

Rodahn said:
			
		

> 'Are you aware that 100% of people who shoot someone had a gun in their possession at the time?'
> 
> And they would shoot somebody with something other than a gun/rifle/pistol how??????



I think  Reply #251 answered that question.  Your's just added to my confusion this late hour.  Perhaps you would like to get a Cross-bow or even a Long-bow - Silent and Deadly.  No traces of gunpowder.  Use ice darts or arrows and there will be no trace...........opps!  Too much Scfi.


----------



## rifleman

o





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think  Reply #251 answered that question.  Your's just added to my confusion this late hour.  Perhaps you would like to get a Cross-bow or even a Long-bow - Silent and Deadly.  No traces of gunpowder.  Use ice darts or arrows and there will be no trace...........opps!  Too much Scfi.


well a frozen hamburger bullet won't work - Mythbusters disproved that one


----------



## Rodahn

Or how about when you shoot the sheeeeit??????

Chimo...


----------

