# Hillier says - Canada at higher risk of attack.



## Nielsen_Noetic (4 Mar 2005)

Hillier has come out saying that Canada is at more risk of a direct attack now than at any time during the cold war, any thoughts on that assessment?


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2005)

Yes...I know it for a fact.

Without releasing too much i will say that there have been people caught in major city centers doing targeting related activities when arrested.

These people were found to be sympathetic to the Taliban and the AQ.

Sorry no source for this one folks. Pm me if there are any issues with verafication please.

Slim


----------



## Block 1 (4 Mar 2005)

Now none of us believe we are immune from attack. So now we know it and have started to prepare for it, by training and passages of information.  A good friend from the NIC told me once that â Å“ insurgency can only be stopped by a surgical strike in the hart of the festering woundâ ?. Now that said this will not happen until an attack is initiated or has occurred. So all we can do is prevent it form happening This is done by good homeland defence. This must be done without infringing with individual human rights, its a hard path to follow but we as Canadians have no choice, it must be done. 

Chimo !


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (4 Mar 2005)

If that is true it is very disturbing, the government really needs to pick up the ball on this one. Then again if there was a terrrorist attack while the liberals were in office maybe the east would be shaken enough to vote conservative, and give our armed forces a fighting chance(excuse the pun)


----------



## chrisp1j (4 Mar 2005)

Its not a matter of "if" we're going to be attacked, but rather when. 

This fact hopefully serves to remind those of us who will respond first (in the military context, that would be the local reserve units), that this is not a game,or just a part-time job. If your area gets hit with somthing, you must be ready to respond both physically and mentally, because it will be bad. 

This hightens the importance of those things which are being taught, at least in 32 Brigade, at the DRU execises. 

If it happens near you, you'd better have your shit together. 

I'm not being pessimistic, far from it, as the glass is half-full. I'm simply being realistic.

Chris P.


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (4 Mar 2005)

Well despite the lack of funds our men and women are trained well, in the event of an attack I am sure they will do us proud.


----------



## John Nayduk (4 Mar 2005)

Have you got a link to the story or can you post it here?  I'm asking because I like to post this stuff at the Armoury so the guys can read it.  They hear me talk but I'm sure some of them think it just the "old guy" talking.  I like them reading this kind of stuff from other sources.
Thanks.


----------



## Torlyn (4 Mar 2005)

Nielsen_Noetic said:
			
		

> Then again if there was a terrrorist attack while the liberals were in office maybe the east would be shaken enough to vote conservative



 :

Must everything go back to the Liberals?  I'm conservative myself, but this is getting a bit far afield, don't you think?  Oh, and you may want to take a look at what the last conservative federal gv't did to the CF before you continue to bash the Liberals.  Just a suggestion.

T


----------



## scm77 (4 Mar 2005)

Country at risk of direct attack: General
Bigger threat than during Cold War

Need planes to lift troops, equipment

GRAHAM FRASER
NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER

OTTAWAâ â€Canada's military planners have to consider the country a potential location for armed conflict, the chief of the defence staff said yesterday.

"What we have to do in order to be responsive is start treating Canada as an operational theatre," Gen. R.J. Hillier told the Conference of Defence Associations Institute seminar yesterday. *"In some respects, Canada and Canadians, despite their not being fully au fait with it, are at more risk now of direct attack than they have ever been during the Cold War itself."*

He said since Sept. 11, 2001, it has been clear that the Canadian Forces have to treat Canada as an operational theatre if they are to be able to respond to a direct attack.

Hillier said that to be more effective, the Canadian Forces have to develop what the military calls "a strategic lift capacity" â â€ meaning planes that can transport troops and equipment â â€ in order to deploy troops.

"The question is whether we have to own it, or whether we can assure ourselves of it," he said. "I have to tell you I come from the school that if there is any way we can assure ourselves of the lift and responsiveness that we need without owning, that's the route I would recommend we could take."

Later, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci suggested that Canada would be wiser to have its own airlift capacity rather than renting or leasing planes from other countries.

"To respond to future crises, it is likely that Canadian Forces will require their own aircraft," he said. "I can think of nothing that would contribute more to Canada's 3-D (defence, diplomacy and development) foreign policy approach than a steady flow of Canadian air lifters with Maple Leafs on their side delivering humanitarian aid, whether to South East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti or elsewhere."

Cellucci said little about Canada's refusal to participate in ballistic missile defence, except to say that the U.S. had always hoped that Canada would participate."Canada and the United States have a long-standing military relationship," he said.

"We will continue that relationship."

Other speakers at the conference were not so diplomatic.

John Noble, a former diplomat who is now director of research for the Centre for Trade Policy and Law, called Prime Minister Paul Martin's decision "a public relations disaster on all fronts."

Additional articles by Graham Fraser

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1109890212304&call_pageid=970599119419


----------



## John Nayduk (4 Mar 2005)

Thanks.


----------



## shaboing (4 Mar 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Yes...I know it for a fact.
> 
> Without releasing too much i will say that there have been people caught in major city centers doing targeting related activities when arrested.
> 
> ...



i being in police foundations have been shown the video's they were making while picking out their targets.... i will not release any info on where they were filming or what they were filming just for the simple fact that people may be in this area daily or know someone who is. but these people were obviously caught and the tapes never sent, not saying someone else might have already got the footage sent away though

with that being said if you are somewhere and you see someone with a vid camera taking notes and filming buildings and acting suspicious contact the local authorities cause its better to be safe then sorry is what we were told


----------



## Bo (8 Mar 2005)

I don't think increasing defense funding will significantly reduce the risk of getting attacked. Look at the US. They had a 300 billion dollar defense budget at the time of 9/11 and look how that turned out.

While I agree that an increase in defense spending will allow the CF to RESPOND to an attack faster, I seriously doubt it will be able to prevent one. And remember, we're talking about a "terrorist" attack here so it will happen from within our country via a bomb or hijacking (or whatever else they can come up with). Nobody's gonna be launching ICBM's or sending MIG's our way.

Also, who would want to attack Canada? I doubt very much any terrorist organization would consider an attack on Canada to be a worthy cause. The only thing that they would accomplish is making another enemy. 

So why exactly are we at risk? I see alot of you are agree with General Hillier's statement:

"





> In some respects, Canada and Canadians, despite their not being fully au fait with it, are at more risk now of direct attack than they have ever been during the Cold War itself."


 
Were we at serious risk during the Cold War? I don't mean to sound disrespectful with my questioning, but I'm just curious. Who are we at risk from? And why would they want to attack us?


----------



## scm77 (8 Mar 2005)

Bo said:
			
		

> Also, who would want to attack Canada? I doubt very much any terrorist organization would consider an attack on Canada to be a worthy cause. The only thing that they would accomplish is making another enemy.



That's strange, I could've swarn the terrorists were already our enemy.  Oh well, guess I'm just a moron. :


----------



## shaboing (8 Mar 2005)

Bo said:
			
		

> Also, who would want to attack Canada? I doubt very much any terrorist organization would consider an attack on Canada to be a worthy cause. The only thing that they would accomplish is making another enemy.



actually from what we were also told in the lecture in police foundations we are number 5 on Al Quida's list of top 10 countries to attack following 1) US 2) GB 3) i cant remember 4) australia then 5) canada.

all the countries on the list b4 us have been attacked by Al Quida already


----------



## Bo (8 Mar 2005)

scm77 said:
			
		

> That's strange, I could've swarn the terrorists were already our enemy.   Oh well, guess I'm just a moron. :



Who are we referring to when we say "terrorist"? Hezbollah? Hamas? Who exactly?


----------



## Bo (8 Mar 2005)

ShaBoing said:
			
		

> actually from what we were also told in the lecture in police foundations we are number 5 on Al Quida's list of top 10 countries to attack following 1) US 2) GB 3) i cant remember 4) australia then 5) canada.
> 
> all the countries on the list b4 us have been attacked by Al Quida already



Can you provide some sources? Links? Something reputable please


----------



## scm77 (8 Mar 2005)

Al Qaeda.  Remeber them? They were the ones that killed 3,000 people in the US, three and a half years ago.


----------



## Bo (8 Mar 2005)

Ok, so we're at risk of getting attacked by Al Qaeda. Why?


----------



## daniel h. (8 Mar 2005)

Bo said:
			
		

> Ok, so we're at risk of getting attacked by Al Qaeda. Why?



We went to Afhanistan, but even before that, Islamic fundamentalists consider those who aren't like them to be "infidels."


----------



## spenco (8 Mar 2005)

Bo, we are at risk of being attacked because we are a capitalist, secular society with close ties to the US.   We arent oblivious just because we arent in Iraq or because were not in BMD, we would make a great target b/c we are pretty much defenceless and couldn't do anything if we were attacked.   Try taking your head out of the sand for a while 

Shaboing:

Was the third country Spain?


----------



## daniel h. (8 Mar 2005)

scm77 said:
			
		

> Al Qaeda.   Remeber them? They were the ones that killed 3,000 people in the US, three and a half years ago.




Please don't start that debate again.


I may be out of the loop, but have Austrlia and Britain actually been atacked since they were put on Al Qaeda's list? I don't remember hearing that they had been.


----------



## scm77 (8 Mar 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> Please don't start that debate again.



What debate?  I didn't realise there was any debating about who attacked us on 9/11.




> I may be out of the loop, but have Austrlia and Britain actually been atacked since they were put on Al Qaeda's list? I don't remember hearing that they had been.



Not sure about Britain, but Australia was targeted with the Bali bombings in nightclub(s?) killed over 200 most of them Australian tourists, also one of their embassys was bombed, in I think (but may be wrong) Indonesia. 

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/bali/


----------



## from darkness lite (8 Mar 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> I may be out of the loop, but have Austrlia and Britain actually been atacked since they were put on Al Qaeda's list? I don't remember hearing that they had been.



Some facts:   Australia was attacked in Bali by an Al Qaida affiliated terrorist group;
The British Embassy was bombed in Turkey last year(?) by an Al Qaida linked group;
In Nov 2002, Bin Laden personally named Canada, along with the US, UK, Australia,etc as legitimate targets in his eyes;

For the one who wants a credible source regarding the risk to Canada read the following link:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/06/canada/csis040506


----------



## jonsey (8 Mar 2005)

Bo said:
			
		

> Ok, so we're at risk of getting attacked by Al Qaeda. Why?



What makes you think we aren't?


----------



## Bo (8 Mar 2005)

Jonsey said:
			
		

> What makes you think we aren't?



I think we are at risk. heck we have the largest unprotected borders in the world. But I think the risk is somewhat exagerrated, especially by military and intelligence spokespeople so that they can increase their funding   *flame suit on*

I mean if the US just stops fiddling with affairs in the middle east, we wouldn't have terrorists threatening to attack us.

The only reason why I think we may be at risk is because we have close ties with the US. But even that is a stretch. Every country in the world has ties with the US (well most). All those countries that got bombed participated in Iraq. Canada not participating sends a strong message to terrorists: "We don't follow US foreign policy". Unlike UK, Australia, Spain, etc.


----------



## NCRCrow (8 Mar 2005)

Similiar to Germany where some of the 9/11 Hijackers where at, prior to Sep 11. No attacks occurred in Germany , as far as I know.

Regardless, we must be more robust in the Defence of Canada and I applaud the General's ruthless plan.


----------



## Torlyn (9 Mar 2005)

Bo said:
			
		

> I mean if the US just stops fiddling with affairs in the middle east, we wouldn't have terrorists threatening to attack us.



Out of curiosity, do you really think this is possible?  What would a full withdrawl from the middle east by the US achieve?

T


----------



## Fraser.g (9 Mar 2005)

Bo said:
			
		

> I mean if the US just stops fiddling with affairs in the middle east, we wouldn't have terrorists threatening to attack us.



Ahhh yes, I believe that attitude has come up in the past. Prime minister Chamberlin I believe had the same attitude towards Hitler. Appeasement...yes that is the way to go with these people (huge sarcasm). If we don't meddle with their plans of subjugating their population, killing because of ethnic differences, striving for WMD they will leave us alone even though they have voiced definite disdain for our way of life. Heck, that makes total sense to me. ( I can not stress how much sarcasm is dripping through my fingers at this point and all over the keyboard)

GF


----------



## John Nayduk (9 Mar 2005)

From the Globe and Mail web site today.

Avian flu candidate for terror weapon?
By HELEN BRANSWELL 

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 
Updated at 9:44 PM EST

Canadian Press

Toronto - The military's intelligence arm has warned the federal government that avian influenza could be used as a weapon of bioterrorism, a heavily censored report suggests.

It also reveals that military planners believe a naturally occurring flu pandemic may be imminent.

The report, entitled Recent Human Outbreaks of Avian Influenza and Potential Biological Warfare Implications, was obtained under the Access to Information Act by The Canadian Press.

It was prepared by the J2 Directorate of Strategic Intelligence, a secretive branch of National Defence charged with producing intelligence for the government.

The report outlines in broad terms the methods that could be used to develop a manmade strain of influenza capable of triggering a human flu pandemic.

It notes a method called "passaging,â ? while not entirely predictable, could be a "potentially highly effectiveâ ? way to push a virus to develop virulence.

"Such forced antigenic shifts could be attempted in a biological weapons program,â ? says the 15-page report, dated Dec. 8, 2004.

Passaging involves the repeated cycling of strains of a virus through generations of a species of animals or through cell culture. The process can be used to either ratchet up or dial down the virulence of a virus, depending on which of the ensuing offspring - the mild or the severe - are selected in each cycle for the next passage.

There is debate in the community of infectious disease experts whether influenza would make a good bioterrorism agent. For one thing, once released, the virus would not discriminate between friend or foe. Terrorists and their supporters would be as likely to fall ill and die as those they hoped to target.

But if the ultimate goal is panic, social disruption and economic losses, influenza would be a good choice, says Dr. Brian Ward, a virologist at McGill University in Montreal.

"To me it's one of the most logical viruses to use. It doesn't have to be a really bad one to throw a huge wrench,â ? Dr. Ward said.

"I mean, if you want to hurt the world's economy, that's an awfully good way.â ?

Canada estimates the direct and indirect health-care costs alone of a mild flu pandemic would range from $10-billion to $24-billion. That doesn't start to count societal costs such as lost productivity because of mass illness or the impact on vulnerable industries such as airlines and tourism or the insurance sector that would be hit with business losses and death claims.

But influenza expert Dr. Earl Brown suggests that while flu makes a good theoretical bioterror agent, the reality of these "delicateâ ? viruses is that the task would be harder than it appears.

"Flu is a wimpy virus, which I think is the one knock against it. It doesn't persist in the environment (outside a human) very long,â ? says Dr. Brown, a University of Ottawa scientist who specializes in the evolution of influenza viruses.

"You have to infect people sort of straight away, otherwise it's going to die sitting around the environment.â ?

Dr. Brown, who has done expensive work on reassorting or mating flu viruses, says any virus bred to spread would have to meet several key criteria: it would need to jump the species barrier and have the ability both to transmit easily and cause severe disease if it did.

"If you want to see chaos and mayhem and you're not concerned about the backlash, then you just have to get to the biology. And right now nobody can do it,â ? Dr. Brown says.

"There's a good chance that you'd make something that just would burn out. It just wouldn't spread very well.â ? 

The report also raises the spectre of a pandemic strain engineered in a laboratory using reverse genetics. That technically challenging process allows scientists to custom tailor a flu virus, taking genes from a virulent but not highly transmissible strain, for instance, and melding them with genes from a virus that transmits well from person to person.

The report notes this is a technique scientists have been using to try to decipher why the virus that caused the Spanish flu of 1918-1919 was so deadly. That pandemic, which may have claimed upwards of 50 million lives worldwide, was the worst in known history.

"It is feared that this process could be copied ... to produce a human viral strain similar to the 1918-1919 pandemic,â ? the report says.

It also theorizes that a naturally occurring pandemic may be imminent, unless rigorous measures are taken to contain the spread of the H5N1 avian flu strain that has been responsible for more than 45 deaths in Southeast Asia in the last 14 months.

The report says factors such as the region's inability to eradicate the virus and influenza's propensity to mutate rapidly "raises the possibility that a novel strain capable of efficient human-to-human transmission may arise in the near future, threatening Canadian operations worldwide.â ?

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Mar 2005)

Anyone know what the militaries role would be if a pandemic did come about natural or otherwise?


----------



## pbi (9 Mar 2005)

I can offer a perspective on a related (but not identical) topic.

During the preps for Y2K in LFCA we got involved with the Province of Ontario and the Ontario Hospital Association (?) on the whole issue of military medical assistance in a major emergency. The way it shook out (at least in 1999...) was that the greatest value the military would have to offer would be in the areas we traditionally do in any civil emergency: general support to the qualified and trained civilians who are dealing directly with the emergency.

Our ability then, (and I assume it is not too different now), to provide medcal resources directly to civilians, was limited by three factors. First, in a major emergency we needed our own integral medical resources to look after the health readiness of the force: in a case of a pandemic, this would be even more true. Second, we just didn't have the resources, period. In particular we lacked specialists. The Regular Force medcal system was undermanned and  could generate only one major deployable medical asset: 1CFSH, which had to be manned on a contingency basis by robbing other CFMS units. The Bde Fd Ambs were small and were clearly needed to support the Bdes if they were deployed, especially if the civil medical system was stressed. The Res Med Coys (now Res Fd Ambs) were in far worse shape and had litle real medical value.
Finally (at that time-I don't know about 2005...) there was a legal issue about medical professionals who were not licensed by the Province providing planned and deliberate medical care in Ontario (as opposed to "Good Samaritan" medical care at the side of the road _in extremis_). That meant that there might be difficulty employing CFMS pers from outside the Province. Perhaps this could be waived in a emergency today.

So, to sum up, my guess is that we would be doing the general non-technical support role, while standing ready to assist with public order if that became necessary.

Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Mar 2005)

You don't think we would be enforcing quartene zones and the like?  Also what if base members got sick?  I know there a lot of what if's but for me this is truely a frightening possibility.


----------



## Rushrules (9 Mar 2005)

Wasn't there an Anthrax scare after 9-11??  As well as plans for contaminating the food/water supplies.  No tks, we can do that ourselves and not need any help from overseas.   

I do agree that Canadian interests are threatened by terrorists, but organized crime is by far the biggest threat.  Busting grow ops has no impact on these criminals, since they're everywhere.  

Terrorist cells have been operating since Canada was inhabited by natives eons ago, and this won't change by bringing "democracy"  : to another country.  

As for overseas concerns, Bin Laden is a terrorist plain and simple, and has limited means to achieve his goals.  Round 1 went to them when the US pulled out of Saudi Arabia.  Round 2 is being played out in Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Torlyn (9 Mar 2005)

Rushrules said:
			
		

> As for overseas concerns, Bin Laden is a terrorist plain and simple, and has limited means to achieve his goals.  Round 1 went to them when the US pulled out of Saudi Arabia.  Round 2 is being played out in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Er, when did the US pull all of their interests of of Saudi Arabia??

T


----------



## Franko (9 Mar 2005)

Bo said:
			
		

> Were we at serious risk during the Cold War? I don't mean to sound disrespectful with my questioning, but I'm just curious. Who are we at risk from? And why would they want to attack us?



First question....yes. Soviets.

Second... any number of terrorist organizations, take your pick....we are known far and wide in thier circle as "The devil's little brother" or "Little Devil". 

This stuff is real troops.

Regards


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Mar 2005)

RN PRN said:
			
		

> Ahhh yes, I believe that attitude has come up in the past. Prime minister Chamberlin I believe had the same attitude towards Hitler. Appeasement...



Yes - because refraining from interfering maliciously in the domestic politics of the Middle East the way the west has for over a century certainly is "appeasment" isn't it? 

Lets get some perspective here and stop pretending to be innocent. Anyone even mildly versed in the history of the West in the Middle East shouldn't be at all shocked.



			
				Torlyn said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Must everything go back to the Liberals?  I'm conservative myself, but this is getting a bit far afield, don't you think?  Oh, and you may want to take a look at what the last conservative federal gv't did to the CF before you continue to bash the Liberals.  Just a suggestion.
> 
> T



Indeed. I'm no huge fan of the liberals but it seems any and every thread is another excuse to whine about them.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Mar 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Yes - because refraining from interfering maliciously in the domestic politics of the Middle East the way the west has for over a century certainly is "appeasment" isn't it?



Question:  Do you think arbitrarily leaving the Middle East will solve the problem (including Support for Israel) - or will it create an entire host of new problems which may be far worse in orders of magnitude.



> Lets get some perspective here and stop pretending to be innocent. Anyone even mildly versed in the history of the West in the Middle East shouldn't be at all shocked.



No qualms here.  Any attempts to place one as the "White Knight" in history is bound to be fraught with omission.



> Indeed. I'm no huge fan of the liberals but it seems any and every thread is another excuse to whine about them.



Just replace "Liberals" with "Government of the Day".  I'm sure if the Conservatives or the NDP were in power, debate would naturally fall back to blaming them instead of the Grits.

Perhaps "Blaming the Government of the Day" is a form of logical fallacy (straw man)?  That being said, they are the ones responsible for this sort of thing, aren't they?


----------



## pbi (9 Mar 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> You don't think we would be enforcing quartene zones and the like?   Also what if base members got sick?   I know there a lot of what if's but for me this is truely a frightening possibility.



The enforcement of quarantine zones is one of the things I had in mind when I made the comment about "public order". But even then, I could only see us being called out for that in a very extreme situation, since the message it would send would be quite frightening. I suppose that if a large city such as Vancouver was to be quarantined, it would strain police resources (especially if some of them became sick...) and we might be requested.

If our own people get sick, they would be reported to the local Provincial Officer of Health and my guess is that they would be handled according to the system set up by the Province, Health Canada, etc. The military just does not have the medical capacity to handle this on its own. Plus, if we do not cooperate with the disease control plan, we risk spreading it ourselves.

My question is: is avian flu spread from human to human, or bird to human? If the former, we could have a serious problem. If the latter, IMHO it would be much more manageable


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Question:   Do you think arbitrarily leaving the Middle East will solve the problem (including Support for Israel) - or will it create an entire host of new problems which may be far worse in orders of magnitude.



Not at all. The point I was trying to make (maybe I should have been clearer) was that we're nowhere near innocent in the entire affair and while we can't be expected to just say "okay, do what you will", we do need to stop behaving as though we've had no hand in what has been dealt to us. 

We have to do what we can to help the situation but we're going to go about with the wrong perspective if we keep speaking to ourselves as though we're innocent bystanders. 



> No qualms here.   Any attempts to place one as the "White Knight" in history is bound to be fraught with omission.



Indeed. Omission is something we seem to be very fond of, most especially in the instruction of our children in world history. 



> Just replace "Liberals" with "Government of the Day".   I'm sure if the Conservatives or the NDP were in power, debate would naturally fall back to blaming them instead of the Grits.
> 
> Perhaps "Blaming the Government of the Day" is a form of logical fallacy (straw man)?   That being said, they are the ones responsible for this sort of thing, aren't they?



lol - We can add that to the list with "ex post facto" and "ad hoc ergo propter hoc" - "Blaming the Government of the Day: def: attributing causation to the present authorities, regardless of evidence" - maybe it should be first on the list, though we'll have to find some latin translation for it or it won't sound as hoytie-toytie.

You're right - governments are responsible much of the time. I think greater accountability might curb their willful idiocy to some extent but it may also lead to inaction and paralysis. That's a debate for another thread, though. 

To get back to the topic at hand: interesting that of that "list of 5", we're the only ones that haven't suffered an attack. I'm not implying anything, it's just curious.


----------



## from darkness lite (9 Mar 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> My question is: is avian flu spread from human to human, or bird to human? If the former, we could have a serious problem. If the latter, IMHO it would be much more manageable



pbi

According to the World Health Org, Avian flu is currently spread from bird to human.  The fear is this:
The 1918 pandemic that killed 20 million(?) was an avian flu that, over time, developed/adapted the ability to perform human-to-human transmission.  The WHO believes this is what's going on right now, as more and more people catch bird flu, the virus will evolve, eventually leading to a pandemic.

This stuff can just give you the creeps....

cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Mar 2005)

There have been a few isolated incidents in Asia where they believe that the bird flu has been transmitted bird to person to person.  This shit creeps me out.


----------



## from darkness lite (9 Mar 2005)

Glorifed Ape wrote: "To get back to the topic at hand: interesting that of that "list of 5", we're the only ones that haven't suffered an attack. I'm not implying anything, it's just curious."

As alluded to in some of the first posts in this thread, its, in my personal opinion, luck that we haven't been attacked, not some "touchy feely policy".   Canada is still actively involved in the War on Terror.   See link:   http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1615 ), and AQ knows this. Also, AQ never rushes anything.   The UK embassy bombing in Turkey occurred what, almost 2 years after Bin Laden's Nov 02 video naming Canada a target?   

I hope everyday that we don't get hit, however my gut tells me otherwise.

Cheers


----------



## RCD (10 Mar 2005)

Already are.Domestic terrorist
 Our current Government (funding)


----------



## from darkness lite (11 Mar 2005)

CFL wrote "There have been a few isolated incidents in Asia where they believe that the bird flu has been transmitted bird to person to person.  This crap creeps me out."

Been following this as part of my work.  According to the World Health Org, this is part of the virus' evolution/adaptation until it can easily transmit from human-to-human.  The good news, if you consider it good news, is the WHO believes the virus, as it evolves, will become less deadly (in order to spread the virus needs living hosts).  Currently the mortality rate of the bird flu is 70%, lets hope to God that the WHO is right and the mortality rate drops significantly, or else we could have one h*ll of a disaster on our hands.

All this stuff can be checked at the WHO's website, for those who don't mind the heeby-jeebies.

Cheers.......


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Mar 2005)

I think it would just scare me even more.  I hope the gov't has plans for shutting down air travel etc on a major scale.


----------



## Dare (13 Mar 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Not at all. The point I was trying to make (maybe I should have been clearer) was that we're nowhere near innocent in the entire affair and while we can't be expected to just say "okay, do what you will", we do need to stop behaving as though we've had no hand in what has been dealt to us.



That's a very revealing statement. Explain to me exactly what "hand" Canada has had in creating Islamic terrorism? I hope you would travel back through your history text books far enough to know that Islamic fundamentalism/expansionism and extremism has existed before Canada was even incorporated. The only difference now is that they have access to weapons that can kill all of us, fast efficient centralized communication and the delivery methods. The will and intent has always been there. I would love for you to explain to me why it is we should not meddle in the domestic affairs of these countries when their platform includes conquering our democracy and subjugating our people? I would also love an explaination as to how representative democracy would even exist in these countries if it was not for the West's "meddling". Anyone "mildly versed" in the Qur'an and Shar'ia law and the history of the middle east shouldn't be shocked we're proactively defending ourselves.



> To get back to the topic at hand: interesting that of that "list of 5", we're the only ones that haven't suffered an attack. I'm not implying anything, it's just curious.



Canada is a conduit to the U.S. and I would think that it would be less likely any enemy would want to risk losing that entry and safety by triggering a sizable adverse reaction to their presence. Especially with a significant portion of the population expousing sympathetic views and kinship towards any and every anti-American bend. It's easy to operate here. The very fact that our biggest problem "seems" to be drug lords should present to us that the big fish and more dangerous cliques are *not being caught*. We're the best launching pad into the U.S. Strategically it makes sense. Unfortunately (or fortunately), most Jihadists operate independantly. One day someone will come along and "make an example" of us, not because of what we have done in the middle east, but because we are deemed infidels.


----------



## shaboing (13 Mar 2005)

spenco said:
			
		

> Shaboing:
> 
> Was the third country Spain?



to be honest i really can't remember. something in the back of my mind says france but i'm pretty sure its not spain but dont quote me. it was over a year ago i had this lecture. 

my sources are reliable for the person who was questioning them because we were being lectured by cops and shown the video that would have been sent to bin laden or whoever in his command that takes care of that if it wasn't for the police catching the guys. with it being a lecture i dont quite have any links to give you but apparently the top 10 list is on al quida's website if you can read it and want to go to it and possibly have your IP tracked by the government, lol.


----------



## CH1 (13 Mar 2005)

Hey Guys!

The scenario that Canada is a target is not new.  There has been crap happening in this country for decades.  The political task masters have kept their collective heads buried for years, so they wouldn't incite panic onto John Q. Citizen.  Ignorance is bliss, in their eyes.

I am glad to see General Hillier has gained the chutzpah to challenge the nay sayers (long overdue).  I wish him all the best as they will probably shorten his tenure.

Back on topic though.  Canada has had the reputation as a terrorist clearing house for decades.  As we are a major supplier to our neighbour & not fully capable (tactically) of looking after our own house, we have opened the flood gates.  As proud  as I am of our military & country,  our military is neither capable in terms of equipment, or manpower to seriously challenge an asymetrical or conventional war on our own turf.  If matters really got out of hand, I dare say the retired military, hunters & Mr. Citizen would likely have more than a word or two for any body that upsets the peace & tranquility. (I wonder what would happen to gun control?)

The Leaders have known about & tracked terrorist groups starting right after the FLQ crisis, & the list grows almost every day.  The military still maintains their dark broom closet, prepping info & scenarios in the event of terrorist attack.  Since 9/11, the threat has increased by almost 100 fold or more.  Even during the cold war, Canada was listed as a major target.

A very quick way to bring our southern ally to his knees is to cut off supplies & resources.  Guess where their closest secure suppy is.

That's about all I can add without landing myself in a sling. So for the nay sayers, WAKE up, it is all too real a possibility.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (13 Mar 2005)

Personally, I do not think that Canada is at a much higher risk of attack than anybody else. Why would a terrorist group attack a Canadian target, when they can take an extra 45 minute drive south and attack Americans. If they have spent years getting a plan together, why not take an extra few days, drive south, and hurt your real enemy?

I firmly believe they are among us, providing support at various levels. Whether it be cash, communications, intelligence. They are here, and they are busy.

Canada being a multi cultural country, every population on earth is represented in our cities, towns and neighbourhoods. As for an overseas group wanting to conduct an attack against one of its enemies, in Canada, that could certainly happen. History has shown that the Canadian way of doing things can provide a rich environment for organizations to attack it's enemy within our boarders. Look at the Air India bombing, or the Turkish embassy incident March 12th 1995. Terrorist attacks can and will happen here, but to have them directed at Canadians in General is something I don't feel will happen. If they really wanted too, I think terrorist's already would have.


----------



## daniel h. (13 Mar 2005)

scm77 said:
			
		

> What debate?   I didn't realise there was any debating about who attacked us on 9/11.
> 
> 
> Not sure about Britain, but Australia was targeted with the Bali bombings in nightclub(s?) killed over 200 most of them Australian tourists, also one of their embassys was bombed, in I think (but may be wrong) Indonesia.
> ...




Us? Canada wasn't attacked on September 11th. There are a number of theories as to the accuracy of the official story, similar to the JFK situation, but seeing as this site doesn't like discussing things that can't be proven clearly I can't get into it. There was no criminal investigation, only the televised inquiry. Google on your own time.


----------



## daniel h. (13 Mar 2005)

Stirling N6123 said:
			
		

> Personally, I do not think that Canada is at a much higher risk of attack than anybody else. Why would a terrorist group attack a Canadian target, when they can take an extra 45 minute drive south and attack Americans. If they have spent years getting a plan together, why not take an extra few days, drive south, and hurt your real enemy?
> 
> I firmly believe they are among us, providing support at various levels. Whether it be cash, communications, intelligence. They are here, and they are busy.
> 
> Canada being a multi cultural country, every population on earth is represented in our cities, towns and neighbourhoods. As for an overseas group wanting to conduct an attack against one of its enemies, in Canada, that could certainly happen. History has shown that the Canadian way of doing things can provide a rich environment for organizations to attack it's enemy within our boarders. Look at the Air India bombing, or the Turkish embassy incident March 12th 1995. Terrorist attacks can and will happen here, but to have them directed at Canadians in General is something I don't feel will happen. If they really wanted too, I think terrorist's already would have.




In the biggest cities it is quite diverse. Rural areas are a different world. 

I just don't know if I like the premise. Life is risky. Terrorist attacks kill very small numbers of people and rarely happen--especially in Canada. A good way to sistract people from bigger threats like everything else.

Last good example of terrorism in Canada was Canadian--much as the Timothy McVeigh issue was a U.S. domestic issue:



The Squamish Five (sometimes referred to as the Vancouver Five) were a group of self-styled "urban guerillas" active in Canada during the early 1980s. Their chosen name was Direct Action.

The five were Ann Hansen, Brent Taylor, Julie Belmas, Doug Stewart and Gerry Hannah of the music group Subhumans. Unlike the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, and other groups, they were not motivated by a political ideology which placed them at the vanguard of a Marxist revolution. Rather, they were activists who had become disenchanted and frustrated with traditional methods of activism. They believed that by engaging in semi-symbolic propaganda by the deed, they could jolt people into action themselves.

Early Actions
The first actions associated with the group were not particularly militant. They vandalized the headquarters of Amax, a British Columbia (BC) mining company which had been granted a special exemption from environmental laws, and the British Columbia Department of the Environment.

After these actions the group began to become more militant and began training with stolen weapons in a deserted area north of Vancouver. By pure chance they came upon large caches of dynamite used for construction work, which they looted for their own use. They dropped out of normal life, obtained a roster of fake IDs, and began supporting themselves through various forms of fraud and theft.

On 30 May 1982, Hansen, Taylor, Stewart and Belmas drove to Vancouver Island and set a large bomb at an electricity transmission project. Four transformers were wrecked beyond repair, but no one was injured. The electrical substation had been criticized for being environmentally unsound and serving to help destroy the remaining wilderness on the island.


The Litton Bomb
Following this action, Hansen, Taylor,Belmas and Stewart filled a van with 500 pounds of dynamite and drove cross-country to Toronto. Their target this time was Litton Systems, a company producing guidance components for the controversial American cruise missiles many feared would increase the risk of nuclear war. Hansen recalls driving the truck full of dynamite across the praries, "listening to the Dead Kennedys, D.O.A., the Doors and Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska". (Ironically, the Litton bombing was referenced in a later Dead Kennedys song, "Where do you Draw the Line?")

The Litton bomb was supposed to cause property destruction only, with no injuries. The van was parked in full view of corporate security, and an elaborate "warning box" was duct-taped to the hood, displaying a message, a digital clock counting down, and a single stick of dynamite to show it was no joke. Belmas called the security desk and warned them of the explosion, giving instructions on exactly what to do and where the danger area was. But security did not respond the way they expected. The evacuation was just getting started when the bomb exploded minutes ahead of schedule. Seven people were injured in that incident.


Arrest
The bombers fled Toronto for Vancouver and ceased their activities for several months. But the high-profile crime had attracted major police attention and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) was closing in. Hansen and Belmas would commit one more militant action, the firebombing of two stores selling violent pornographic films, before all five were captured on the road to their training area by an RCMP tactical unit disguised as a road crew. This was just outside the town of Squamish, BC, giving rise to the name.

The five received sentences ranging from six years to life. All are now out of prison.

In 2002, Ann Hansen's Direct Action: Memoirs of an Urban Guerilla was published. While she acknowledges tactical mistakes and misconceptions, Hansen maintains that her actions were justified, and that liberal, capitalist democracies should be challenged through direct action and other forms of protest.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squamish_Five


----------



## Dare (14 Mar 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> Us? Canada wasn't attacked on September 11th. There are a number of theories as to the accuracy of the official story, similar to the JFK situation, but seeing as this site doesn't like discussing things that can't be proven clearly I can't get into it. There was no criminal investigation, only the televised inquiry. Google on your own time.



http://www.members.shaw.ca/kcic1/cdnwtc.html


----------



## Dare (14 Mar 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> In the biggest cities it is quite diverse. Rural areas are a different world.
> 
> Last good example of terrorism in Canada was Canadian--much as the Timothy McVeigh issue was a U.S. domestic issue:



http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/airindia/



> I just don't know if I like the premise. Life is risky. Terrorist attacks kill very small numbers of people and rarely happen--especially in Canada. A good way to sistract people from bigger threats like everything else.



Terrorist attacks only kill (relatively) small numbers of people because they only have easy access to (relatively) small bombs. The idea is to prevent them from getting big bombs. Just remember, if you or someone you care about is on the business end of one of those bombs, it's scope suddenly engulfs your entire world regardless of its size.


----------

