# Terrorism in London England: What would we do if something like this happened in Toronto?



## Vigilant (7 Jul 2005)

Crap, what the heck would we do if something like this happened in Toronto?


----------



## Horse_Soldier (7 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> Crap, what the heck would we do if something like this happened in Toronto?


Considering that Toronto called in the Army to deal with the aftermath of a snowstorm, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Vigilant (7 Jul 2005)

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> Considering that Toronto called in the Army to deal with the aftermath of a snowstorm, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.



That was totally different.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (7 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> That was totally different.


Um no - it is an example of the difficulties a city like Toronto (and by extention the country) has in dealing with unexpected events that overwhelm the resources in place.  Imagine a city unable to deal with a true canadian event like a snowstorm try to deal with a couple of bombings in the financial district - maybe Union Station as well.  We don't have much experience of terrorist attacks against infrastructure in this country, so what experience we have with natural disasters will have to serve as a proxy for our ability to respond, and I for one am not optimistic that we even have adequate plans in place, let alone the resources to deal with the aftermath in a coordinated and effective manner.


----------



## Gouki (7 Jul 2005)

Hate to say it .... but it *is* going to take an attack on us before Canadians in general wake up from the delusional dream we're in and realize we're in just as much dangre as Spain, London, America - everywhere else pretty much. 

Seems we suffer the "Athenian syndrome" we rest on our laurels while the enemy gets stronger and bolder and at the last possible second we finally decide to do something. Usually by then it's too late.


----------



## LCIS227 (7 Jul 2005)

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> Considering that Toronto called in the Army to deal with the aftermath of a snowstorm, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.


PFFT

I just sprayed my pepsi all over this screen thru my nose when i read that, haha ... ouch...


----------



## Dave Mount (7 Jul 2005)

Don't blame us because the "Appliance Salesman" wanted a good photo op.  I was working the entire time of the storm.  TFS helped EMS get their ambulances through snow clogged streets.
Toronto has come a long way since then.  We are training a HUSAR team.  We have a combined CBRN team with TFS, EMS and Toronto Police.
We just need some politicians with a backbone to spend the training money and then use their own resources.


----------



## shokuten (7 Jul 2005)

i read some of the comments posted on that CBC site

why do Canadians think that we're safe from this? didn't the terrorist threaten Canada to, so we didn't go to Iraq but we played a major role in Afghanistan.

I've thought about it, and i think we are just as likely to be a target as anyone else...even if were not a target isn't it better to be safe then sorry?

i think Canada needs to spend a little more cash into defense and offense, the CF needs to be better equipped and so does the RCMP.


----------



## Gunnar (7 Jul 2005)

We are and we're not.   Canada is so small on the world stage, and we matter so little, that we're not a likely target...we wouldn't be as big a media hit as if they hit New York.   Given that most people outside the country can't tell us apart from Americans (when we ourselves can, mostly)....why would they choose to hit our soft underbelly?

Sure, they could.   Sure we're not safe, and we're not prepared to handle it...but would it be as big a world story as New York or London?


----------



## P-Free (7 Jul 2005)

The enemy couldn't give a flying rats arse about media stories, all they want is to inflict mass casualties on innocent women and children. Canada is a prime target and it is only a matter of time.


----------



## TCBF (7 Jul 2005)

On the plus side, none of those missing 'Suitcase Nukes' the Russians and the Saudis say the terrorists have has popped up. 

Yet.

Tom


----------



## shokuten (7 Jul 2005)

Canadas a good target, because were so close to the states, but the enemy uses the media to inform their possible recurits of their activitys..

i think Canada is a good target, and we should start beefing up the CF....if anything Britain is gonna ask us to help them out, and i think we should, Canada and the UK were always good buddies...or at least i think they are


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (7 Jul 2005)

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> Sadly, the unwashed masses remain in frighteningly obtuse denial, if the comments posted on Propaganda Canada aka the CBC are any indication
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace/london-blasts.html



NDP Leader Jack Layton:





> Like all Canadians, I am repulsed by the violence we have witnessed today in London and express our deepest condolences to the families of the victims and to all those affected.
> 
> I join with Prime Minister Blair, Prime Minister Martin and the other G-8 leaders in strongly condemning these acts of terrorism.  We will not allow it to undermine Canadian society, our institutions or our beliefs in democracy, human rights, tolerance, and equality.  Indeed, we must go forward today with greater determination to build a world that embraces these ideals.
> 
> ...


 http://www.ndp.ca/page/1458


----------



## jmacleod (7 Jul 2005)

Citizens from Alberta were kind enough to inflict a former Nova Scotian on an unsuspecting
Canadian electorate, Federal Minister Anne MacLellan MP - thanks so much. This silly lady is
responsible for a great deal of the security for the nation's harbours, airports and borders -
MacLellan would never have been elected in Nova Scotia, so she learned to spell "Alberta"
without moving her lips, and appeared in Ottawa like the ghost of Christmas Past - good God!
MacLeod


----------



## mover1 (7 Jul 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> The PM and his gang are in Scotland right now for the G-8 summit. I hope that this shakes their boots a bit and gives them a wake up call to start taking this stuff seriously, and front the cash instead of just double talk.
> But then Ann Maclellan will open her mouth. Jack Layton will want the money for some far out social plan. And the Consevatives will try to vote it down in non- confidence.



"There is no specific threat to Canadians, but we have to be prepared." 

-Anne McLellan, minister of public safety 

"I join with Prime Minister Blair, Prime Minister Martin and the other G-8 leaders in strongly condemning these acts of terrorism. We will not allow it to undermine Canadian society, our institutions or our beliefs in democracy, human rights, tolerance, and equality

As evidence of that resolve, I urge the leaders gathered in Gleneagles to press on with their stated agenda to address global climate change and to meeting our commitments to fight global poverty."

 Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2005)

Interesting (scary) fact.  Of the 6 nations on Bin Ladens list we are the only one's that haven't been hit yet.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2005)

edit I guess Italy hasn't either according to this:
http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1120783649028_27?hub=topstories


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (8 Jul 2005)

Im not sure that Canada will see attacks like Europe and the US. Im thinking we in Canada are much like mexico, in that we are a neighbor to the USA that can afford a relatively easy passage into the states. If we are attacked that would tighten up the relatively easy access to the states. Dont get me wrong, our border police are doing their best but when blank passports are as easy to get as boogers at a day care and our blessed politicians are too busy fighting over the grewal tapes, whos watching the horizon for bad guys.

 Im sorry to say but if there were a terrorist attack on Canada, even if it meant thousands of lives, I cant see our government making any drastic defense changes. Look around your communities. People these days have never had to hide their families from threats or spent weeks living in basements. The idea "it cant happen here" is far too common. IMHO the Canadian government is playing the quiet bystander to world terror and is too scared to make a commitment.

 I liken it to the gulf war. USA had total air superiority, Canada sends a few planes. The fifth fleet are watching the waterways, we send some old ships fitted with guns from the museum. How about instead of mopping up after the brawl is over, we build up our armed forces and take a stand against global terror no matter what the result might be.


----------



## Manimal (8 Jul 2005)

a friend read/heard that the only two places untouched my terror has been Canada, and italy.... and there are reports of large number of terrorist cells hiding in Canada. we're next GOD forbid  :threat:

where would get hit, i think TO, and Ottawa are the only cities that make sense.


----------



## KevinB (8 Jul 2005)

I am betting on OIL in Alberta - or something to do with the freshwater...

It will be big - it will be ugly and 99% of Canadians won't even know why.


----------



## 45506445210414924 (8 Jul 2005)

i have to agree in a way with alberta considering there oil, but i believe that the niagara hydro system in the falls would be a lilkely target, it controls most of the hydro for southern ontario along with sections of the states. yet, i highly doubt it would happen!  :rage:


----------



## Slim (8 Jul 2005)

01sierra said:
			
		

> i, i highly doubt it would happen!



I wonder how many in London said that?!


----------



## Gency (8 Jul 2005)

Why blow the hydroelectric dam when you can just take out a few transformers. Unprotected, easy targets. Its ridiculous how simple it would be to cause another blackout.


----------



## PeterLT (8 Jul 2005)

If something like the London bombings happen in Toronto the Martin government would swing into action, boldly mobilize the military and RCMP, sweeping the skies with CF18's and patroling the Great Lakes with subs and frigates. Great wads of cash would flow into the Liberal friendly city. He would be labeled as the greatest Prime Minister for his quick reaction and grave concern for the safety and security of the prople of Toronto.

If the same thing happened in Calgary, Regina or Vancouver Mr. Martin would spring into action! But first he'd go on vacation (working with Mr. Kadaffy to open doors for Cdn business), then about 5 days later, Ann McLellan would express deep concern on behalf of the PM (He cares you know..). This would be followed by the appointment of several Liberal Senators and a few outstanding citizens of note to review the event and put forth any recommendations; their report due in 6 months. Then, when all the debris has been cleared, the dead buried and the wounded safely out of view, the Prime Minister would appear at ground zero surrounded by a CBC news team headed by Peter Mansbridge. Naturally, he would look concerned and have some really inspirational sound bites but will not commit any Federal assistance because "It's a provincial responsibility". 

Based on experience out west, I wonder if I'm far off?


----------



## Manimal (8 Jul 2005)

there are a few goals of terrorism, and many times a bombing is only trying to accomplish one or two of those goals.
1) body count. military of civilian, doesn't matter.
2) an important landmark. this maybe be something like US Cole, or an embassy.
3) underminding the enemy government/powers that be.

when you hit a base, or war ship, you hit all the main goals. but body count, and underminding the gov't seem to be the most common goals of AQ, they are hitting gov't property, and public areas.... only a handful of times have the goals been to hurt the infrastructure of a area, and i bet the twin towers were more of a landmark/body count hit, they hurting the business district.

Canada is not a big player on anything that would hurt the country as a whole if it was hit. there is no precedence to hit a hydro damn, or a power plant, it would be for terror, and body count. subway in TO.... maybe the skydome, or CN tower. hitting a national landmark hits all three goals. but, subways are popular with them lately..... body count and fear are what they really want.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Jul 2005)

These are from Todays Toronto SUN, some of this stuff is cringe worthy especially Howard Moscoes comments, what blithering idiot.  Unfourtunately many other people think they same.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/London/2005/07/08/1122548-sun.html



> By Rob Granatstein, Toronto Sun
> 
> LEAVE IT to TTC chairman and Toronto Councillor Howard Moscoe to put the situation in perspective.
> 
> ...



Idiot.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/London/2005/07/08/1122547-sun.html



> TORONTO THINKS ITS SAFE
> 
> By ROB GRANATSTEIN, CITY HALL BUREAU
> 
> ...



and finally the editorial

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2005/07/08/1122221.html



> It's time those in charge of this nation's security started telling Canadians the truth. That is, that a terrorist attack on Canada by al-Qaida now seems inevitable.
> 
> With yesterday's atrocities in London, four of the five so-called "Christian nations" named by Osama bin Laden himself as potential targets have now been hit.
> 
> ...


----------



## winchable (8 Jul 2005)

> Quote from: 01sierra on Today at 10:48:13
> i, i highly doubt it would happen!
> 
> 
> I wonder how many in London said that?!



Probably not many and I think it showed in the reaction, there has been a constant threat of IRA attack in London for decades. Last time I was in London (2001) the IRA were behind a thwarted bomb attack (I say thwarted but it did end up injuring people and destroying property in a controlled explosion)

I only hope that there is something in Place in Canadian cities (especially ones with massive mass transit systems and airports) to deal with something like that and I sadly doubt there is. I told my parents that I felt safer in Birmingham yesterday after the bombings than I would feel in Toronto or Halifax, it's true because I saw the populace's reaction and the EMS reaction it was all rehearsed and the public shrugged it off (or will shrug it off) because they're experienced with it.
Even a simulating responses to actual attacks is no substitute for years of actual responses, it's an unavoidable thing and it's a matter of when.
And I'm an optimist!

Canada and the US have a number of interconnected industries and a porous border, any moderately determined operative could easily get to the US by striking something in Canada, so even if a person considers themselves safe because Canada stayed out of Iraq they might very well become a collateral victim of an attack aimed at the US because hey "We're in a bubble" or also realistically they could be the victim of a London/New York-esque attack on a major urban area.


----------



## EW (8 Jul 2005)

They don't accomplish maximum terror by striking military bases.   If it was a base that had been hit yesterday in the UK then Britons would have been compassionate and the world would have voiced support for the UK, but the impact on Britons would not have been as great as seeing young women, men (and likely children) blown up in downtown London.   To some degree all countries (including Canada) expect their military mbrs to be at greater risk than the general populace.   Maximum terror effect for minimal effort means reminding people that they elected their government and they are at risk in their homes.   

Besides, I suspect hitting a major urban area, where people are somewhat desensitized to strangers, would be preferable to a foreign terrorist cell than operating in a small town (Pet, Cold Lake, even Halifax and Esquimalt) or in the backcountry of Alberta. For them to go outside the major centres would be a change in tactics.   Of course nothing is certain with these folks - contrary to what people want to believe - they ain't dumb, and should never be underestimated.   But, NO country can protect everything equally at once.   I would not judge what Canada is doing against terrorism (within Canada) so much by what the military is doing - it isn't the Army's job to prevent terrorism in Canada.   Granted - it is the job of Special Forces to fight it should it show up in Canada, and it is beyond the control of the local Police.   The intelligence services (and RCMP) are fighting it in Canada every day, it is the military's job to be sent to stabilize those countries that could be breeding grounds for the terrorist of tomorrow.   And when necessary directly take the fight to those countries which directly arm and train terrorists.   This is not to degrade the Army's role in Canada, the CF's first priority is to protect Canadians in Canada, and the new "Canada Command" is a sign of that high priority, but when it comes to terrorism, the intelligence/police services are the front line within Canada.

As for the Army having to plow snow in Toronto.   Come on, who still takes that whole episode seriously as being representative of the emergency services in T.O.?   That was nothing more than politics.   You had a jumpy mayor in Toronto, combined with a Minister of Nat Defence who was a former mayor of T.O., and who represented a T.O. riding.


----------



## CH1 (8 Jul 2005)

All the doubting thomas's in Canada are going to have a rude awakening one fine morning.  It's been 35 years since the October crisis.  A dozen ppl tied up the country for months.  What did we learn from that?  We are still short a dozen Brens, a couple of GPMG's, .50 Cals & some FN's.  Canadians have been lulled into a false sense of security.

There has been upteen little incidents that have never made the news in this country.  A terrorist like Osama probably places Canada fairly high up on his hate mail list, due to our connections to the "Evil Infidel".  We supply water, power, oil, & other resources to the U.S.  We are the soft under belly.  What a statement it would make if they hit TO, or Van, or the pipelines with water &/or oil.  Cut off the lights, etc.  Right under the nose of & in the "Evil Infidel's" back yard.

To Osama & his merry band, there is absolutely no difference between Canada & U.S., aside from the dotted line on a map.  Even rating highly as a staging ground, body counts are all that matters to these low lifes.

We as a nation have to get our act together, & start tightening up security from west to east, south to north.  WHEN our turn comes on the world stage, we will be screwed, blued & tatooed.  There is no way we are in any way prepared to deal with any situation on a national scale. 

I wouldn't doubt that there is elements hatching a plan to strike both here & the U.S. simutaneously.  They probably have only one good shot at a major strike, & they'll have to make it good.

Cheers


----------



## civvy3840 (8 Jul 2005)

Manimal said:
			
		

> a friend read/heard that the only two places untouched my terror has been Canada, and italy.... and there are reports of large number of terrorist cells hiding in Canada. we're next GOD forbid  :threat:
> 
> where would get hit, i think TO, and Ottawa are the only cities that make sense.



I don't know about that...So far they have been hitting major cities so Toronto and Ottawa are up there but they could also go for places like Monreal, Vancouver, or even Edmonton.


----------



## Gency (8 Jul 2005)

As an industrial firefighter within the Durham Region, and having gone on training with the Toronto Fire Department, I am confident that the TFS could handle the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Security is not our concern though, we'll leave that up to the guys with the guns.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (8 Jul 2005)

Unfortunately it'll take an attack in Canada before some of our more idealist citizens pull their collective heads out of their collectives arses.  Until then, I will continue to expect the useful idiots to point to Iraq as the underlying justifiable cause for attacks on Americans, British and whoever else participated in the invasion, while at the same time patting themselves on the back for having sent over a couple thousand dollars worth of books for Iraqi schools....because that's how you make a real difference in the world.



Matthew.   :


----------



## Manimal (8 Jul 2005)

civvy3840 said:
			
		

> I don't know about that...So far they have been hitting major cities so Toronto and Ottawa are up there but they could also go for places like Monreal, Vancouver, or even Edmonton.




Toronto would be a prefered site because Ottawa is in ON too. and many many people see TO as the center of canada.... vancouver is too far to one end. although immigration is high there. but TO is like one of the most diverse cities in the world..... edmonton...too cold, monreal, i just don't think so, i think the whole speration think would lead them away from hitting there....and the fact it's the french part of canada, it's a unique target, but again, i don't think it fits the bill. it'll be TO, subways are on the menu, but, i think something like the skydome would be a big hit for them. filled up on game night, (note all the big attacks come once a year around summer/fall) it's a land mark, and the body count would be high. hell, why not hit them both.... i could see that. 
and i fullly admit i could be bias to TO being hit cause i'm from this area, but it seems like the most likely Canadian target.

edit, and i forgot to point out, we know that there were Aq's living in TO before 9/11


----------



## CH1 (9 Jul 2005)

Ppl would really be shocked if they saw the where's & why's of possible targets.  Fact is we are unprepared & ill equipped to deal with these threats.

Cheers


----------



## x-grunt (9 Jul 2005)

> What would we do if something like this happened in Toronto?



As a City/Province/Nation we would survive, and we would become wiser citizen's of the West. An attack, from someone, somewhere is inevitable I'm sure. And large scale disaster control is not out of the reach of the T.O emergency services. There have been things like the subway collision, subway fires, blackout etc. to test them in the past. 

Although it may test the physical resources of Toronto (I do not know about other major centres - but my bet is on T.O as target of choice) that is not the issue. The real challenge is that as a nation we are not psychologically prepared for an attack. How can we be? We are understandably innocent and naive about violence close to home. Unlike other nations involved, we have not had to deal with wars or major revolutions on our soil in nearly two centuries. Never, in fact, as a nation. The US, UK, and European nations have had this experience in living memory. 9/11 shook our tree, but that was still in a foreign country.

That will be our challenge. And I am confident we will rise to it. We complain about ourselves, but we are a resourceful people. Although a harsh lesson, it may be the one that helps bond us closer as a nation.


----------



## pappy (10 Jul 2005)

IF IT HAPPENS????  Come on get realistic it's only a matter of time, it's not IF but WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN

I hope I'm wroung, I'd like to see the world fed up of this crap, but I don't think it will end soon.  

"Pray for Peace, Prepare for war"  

It will always be easier for the tangos to bomb inocent civialians then it will be for goverments to protect them.

Personally I think we (the west) should just hold a big press conference and get tough, "One more terriorist bomb and we'll nuke Mecca off the face of the earth." and be perpared to do it.  The extreamist Muslims, be they a small percentage will not nesitate to nuke the west when they get the chance.  If we don't show them we're perpared to win this war at any costs, this terrorist bombing will continue for years to come.


----------



## Manimal (11 Jul 2005)

i understand where you are coming from. but it's the faith that is to blame, it's a fuel for sure, but nuking mecca is not the answer. i don't have one, but i know it's going to take a lot more the what's going on now. and even with one area nuked, it doesn't stop the terrorists living in Europe, north America, or Malaysia etc. and can there even been an end, is there the man power to hunt those people in every country? it's going to take more brain power then what we have in the big chairs now to get this job done.


----------



## Black Watch (11 Jul 2005)

We would sound those old nuclear sirens


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Jul 2005)

Manimal said:
			
		

> Toronto would be a prefered site because Ottawa is in ON too. and many many people see TO as the center of canada.... vancouver is too far to one end. although immigration is high there. but TO is like one of the most diverse cities in the world..... edmonton...too cold, monreal, i just don't think so, i think the whole speration think would lead them away from hitting there....and the fact it's the french part of canada, it's a unique target, but again, i don't think it fits the bill. it'll be TO, subways are on the menu, but, i think something like the skydome would be a big hit for them. filled up on game night, (note all the big attacks come once a year around summer/fall) it's a land mark, and the body count would be high. heck, why not hit them both.... i could see that.
> and i fullly admit i could be bias to TO being hit cause i'm from this area, but it seems like the most likely Canadian target.
> 
> edit, and i forgot to point out, we know that there were Aq's living in TO before 9/11



True, I mean, Vancouver is ONLY our largest seaport on the very lucrative Pacific Rim.  Edmonton ONLY has just about every drop of oil produced in Northern Alberta flow through it...Nope, no useful targets out here, good luck, TO, isn't it great to be important?

Kat


----------



## Dirt Digger (11 Jul 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> True, I mean, Vancouver is ONLY our largest seaport on the very lucrative Pacific Rim.   Edmonton ONLY has just about every drop of oil produced in Northern Alberta flow through it...Nope, no useful targets out here, good luck, TO, isn't it great to be important?



The list of possible Canadian targets is probably quite extensive...I'm sure you could name one or two in most of the provinces.  However, Toronto does have the two factors Al Qaida gets hot'n heavy over:  Major financial district and mass transit.

Don't get me wrong...I hate thinking of TO as the centre of the world and the only "target" for terrorism.  Especially since I'm going to U of T this fall and will be taking the subway in from the Downsview 'Q patch...


----------



## x-grunt (11 Jul 2005)

> We would sound those old nuclear sirens


Heh, I remember those. Spooky sound.



> True, I mean, Vancouver is ONLY our largest seaport on the very lucrative Pacific Rim.  Edmonton ONLY has just about every drop of oil produced in Northern Alberta flow through it...Nope, no useful targets out here, good luck, TO, isn't it great to be important?



Lots of strategically valuable targets, but Toronto is the most internationally visible. I mean, an attack in GB on Hull or Rosyth just doesn't have the oomph of an attack on London, now does it? Toronto is the financial center of Canada, bonus points for a terror target. So I could just see someone thinking an attack here would cause much psychological damage and potentially disrupt the markets. Morale and confidence are the true targets of a terror attack, not infrastructure.

As an aside, Toronto  is the target of much arrogance and snobbery, god knows why, in other parts of Canada. Why is that? I can almost imagine some SOB somewhere thinking " I hope they get bombed, serve those Toronto types right".


----------



## Manimal (11 Jul 2005)

hitting a port, or oil is just not there style, they have only gone for populated areas with high body counts. it they wanted to really disrupt things, they would have taken those plains in to a nuke plant, or done damage that way, but they are going to easy hits, with good population.

oil or a port would be a better target, and i'm sure other countries would go for that, but these terrorists aren't taking those targets.


----------



## LCIS227 (11 Jul 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> We are and we're not.   Canada is so small on the world stage, and we matter so little, that we're not a likely target...we wouldn't be as big a media hit as if they hit New York.   Given that most people outside the country can't tell us apart from Americans (when we ourselves can, mostly)....why would they choose to hit our soft underbelly?
> 
> Sure, they could.   Sure we're not safe, and we're not prepared to handle it...but would it be as big a world story as New York or London?



I don't know how valid my opinion is , but what if after many attacks on the US and UK the terrorists come to the conclusion that attacking these guys is not the way to go. That to really pressure the US and UK etc... they attack their allies, like Canada, France, Spain, etc ... creating political pressure on the big powers.

I mean, how would you like having your country bombed for the actions of other countries. I'm sure this would create some friction between the countries and even sanctions etc ...


----------



## -rb (11 Jul 2005)

Manimal said:
			
		

> hitting a port, or oil is just not there style, they have only gone for populated areas with high body counts. it they wanted to really disrupt things, they would have taken those plains in to a nuke plant, or done damage that way, but they are going to easy hits, with good population.
> 
> oil or a port would be a better target, and i'm sure other countries would go for that, but these terrorists aren't taking those targets.



You sure about that one? Google "Iraq attack + Oil pipeline" and let me know what you come up with. If you think those we'll be fighting at home are much different than those coalition forces are currently engaging in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere I think you'd be mistaken.

It seems to me (IMHO) that the insurgents are taking advantage of targets of opportunity, whatever they may be...subways, kidnapping, oil pipelines etc etc etc.

cheers.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jul 2005)

"We would sound those old nuclear sirens"

- Long gone.   Disconnected or removed.   Some still used in small towns for Volunterr FD recalls.

Tom


----------



## Manimal (11 Jul 2005)

yukon said:
			
		

> You sure about that one? Google "Iraq attack + Oil pipeline" and let me know what you come up with. If you think those we'll be fighting at home are much different than those coalition forces are currently engaging in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere I think you'd be mistaken.
> 
> It seems to me (IMHO) that the insurgents are taking advantage of targets of opportunity, whatever they may be...subways, kidnapping, oil pipelines etc etc etc.
> 
> cheers.



insurgents are hitting those. but the terrorists are not making those attacks on foreign soil. 
there are two different objectives between insurgency and terror.


----------



## dutchie (11 Jul 2005)

The only real 'calling card' of Al-Qaeda is it's success, mainly because they hit the indefensible targets. Every Canadian city has multiple 'acceptable' targets. Off the top of my head, they could do the following in Vancouver:

Truck bomb on a BC Ferry, truck bomb underneath the Pan Pacific/Canada Place, suicide/homicide bomber at a Canuck game, Skytrain bomb, truck bomb in the Massey Tunnel (tunnel under the Fraser River for those that don't know), etc, etc... They all have the potential for huge casualties, they all involve indefensible targets, and all could be done with minimal technology. As well, all of the targets involve 'iconic' parts of Vancouver. I am sure every city has a list like this or longer. 

Don't think the threat is just in TO - that is what they want you to think! They will hit where they can suceed, where they can kill lots of people, where they can cause lots of fear, and where there will be lots of media coverage. That includes a lot fo places outside of TO. That's the problem - the very nature of their target selection is that it is impossible or nearly impossible to prevent these attacks. These animals won't hit us when we expect it, where we expect it. It will be somewhat of a surprise (but hopefully not a shock).


----------



## -rb (11 Jul 2005)

Manimal said:
			
		

> insurgents are hitting those. but the terrorists are not making those attacks on foreign soil.
> there are two different objectives between insurgency and terror.


We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. With a large number of _foreign_ fighters in Iraq behind many attacks it seems that they are moving to the fight, wherever it may be. My guess is that trend will only continue as the war on terror migrates west (moreso than it already has), in to North America and certainly in to Canada as well.

cheers.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (11 Jul 2005)

Personally, I have no ideas as to the wheres, whys, and hows about an attack on Canada. All i can say is, we won't know til it's too late, many will die, and there will be a major finger pointing fest at the government/military/police service/whoever that "let this happen to us."

     I think the biggest thing the terrorists can use against us is our complacency over this issue. You have the people that actually are concerned about preparing for an attack . They are viewed as your typical "the sky is falling" types and are not taken seriously. On the other hand, you have the "it can never happen to us " crowd that will collectively screw us over in the end. 

     These two types of Canadians are going to eventually turn into the "why did we let this happen to us "  crowd and then the finger pointing begins.All the while, AQ is sitting in a cave, laughing and watching it all unfold on CBC. 

     Call me a skeptical youngin (or worse) but this is how i see it playing out unless something is done soon. Here's hoping.


----------



## civvy3840 (11 Jul 2005)

Manimal said:
			
		

> Toronto would be a prefered site because Ottawa is in ON too. and many many people see TO as the center of canada.... vancouver is too far to one end. although immigration is high there. but TO is like one of the most diverse cities in the world..... edmonton...too cold, monreal, i just don't think so, i think the whole speration think would lead them away from hitting there....and the fact it's the french part of canada, it's a unique target, but again, i don't think it fits the bill. it'll be TO, subways are on the menu, but, i think something like the skydome would be a big hit for them. filled up on game night, (note all the big attacks come once a year around summer/fall) it's a land mark, and the body count would be high. heck, why not hit them both.... i could see that.
> and i fullly admit i could be bias to TO being hit cause i'm from this area, but it seems like the most likely Canadian target.
> 
> edit, and i forgot to point out, we know that there were Aq's living in TO before 9/11



Toronto is at a risk but then again I think that most major cities are. Montreal would be a good place for an attack, lots of people, subways, etc..., Why would the terrorists care if Quebec wants to seperate from Canada?Rright now they are still apart of Canada. However I do agree that Toronto is one of the cities at the most risk of an attack.


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Jul 2005)

To think that any town or City is safe, is foolish. I can say with some certainty that these groups have considered "attacking the heartland", at least here in the US. Imagine randomly picking cafes, grocery stores, swimming pools, etc., in small towns...... The psychological effects may be even more terrifying than hitting a big city where, to a degree, it was "expected".


----------



## Polish Possy (11 Jul 2005)

http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=db334208-cdb2-43b4-bf35-e27693b1163d


this was just on the news 


And Canada is Number 5 on Terrorist hit list and the other four ....have Now been hit....I feel that what has happend in Britain is a horrible act these terrorists comited towards fellow humans ...

This only strengthens my Reasons and Beliefs for wanting to serve


----------



## Black Watch (12 Jul 2005)

sounds like Prime minister St-Laurent... We are a probable target because we give uncle sam raw materials. . .


----------



## civvy3840 (12 Jul 2005)

Black Watch said:
			
		

> sounds like Prime minister St-Laurent... We are a probable target because we give uncle sam raw materials. . .



That and we are helping in afghanistan.


----------



## McG (16 Jul 2005)

> *Canadians complacent*
> McLellan: Ability to bounce back hinges on psychological preparation, minister says
> _Mohammed Adam
> Ottawa Citizen; with files from The Canadian Press; CanWest News Service
> ...


 . . . but . . . 



> Most Canadians expect terrorist attack on home soil
> _Simon Doyle
> CanWest News Service
> (Printed: Edmonton Journal; Saturday, July 16, 2005)_
> ...


----------



## McG (16 Jul 2005)

> *Canada urged to launch security action plan*
> Public education needed, ex-police chief claims
> _Mohammed Adam
> National Post; CanWest News Service
> ...


----------



## Manimal (17 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> The terrorists have patience and persistence, and you will get hit at some point in time. But it will not be an attack on the CN Tower or something like that. It is going to be an attack on people, on innocents, not combatants," said Ty Fairman, a former FBI counterterrorism agent


----------



## mariomike (7 May 2011)

Update.

The Coroner's Inquests report into the 2005 London terrorist transportation bombings was released only yesterday.
FYI, if interested:
http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/docs/orders/rule43-report.pdf

Related:
Topic: "Toronto tests response to terrorist attacks"  ( 5 pages ):
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/34773.0.html

I have no doubt Toronto Emergency Services will be studying this report with interest. Hopefully, the new mayor will as well.


----------

