# Canada could see terror attacks, Cellucci warns



## John Nayduk (18 Mar 2004)

CTV.ca News Staff 

Updated: Thu. Mar. 18 2004 9:34 AM ET 

Montreal, Toronto or Windsor, Ont., could be targeted the way Madrid has been, U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci warns.

For that reason, Canada must stand with the United States to defend North America and fight terrorism, he says.

Cellucci warned an audience of about 300 at the University of Western Ontario on Wednesday that the terrorist attack last week in Madrid that killed 201 people is a "sobering reminder" that "no one is immune from these attacks and everyone should be vigilant and stand on guard.‘‘

"The probability of further attacks is real," Cellucci said. 

He said his country is "in prevention mode" but needs Canada‘s help. 

"We need a strong Canadian military to help us defend North America and defeat terrorism around the globe," he said.

"We are doing everything in our power to prevent the next attack ... We cannot defend ourselves without Canada‘s help.‘‘

Another terror attack on North America, he warned, would be "catastrophic economically.‘‘ More importantly, an attack against American cities using powerful weapons could also spread death to Canadian cities near the border. 

The ambassador praised Canada for sending forces to Afghanistan, and for giving $300 million to help stabilize Iraq. But when it comes to terrorism, he said, the average Canadian is not as concerned as he or she should be.

The RCMP, CSIS and the Canadian military "get it‘‘ about terrorism, but the Canadian public has been less concerned, Cellucci said.

He said he takes heart from recent moves by Prime Minister Paul Martin, who has asked for a review of defence policy.


----------



## corporal-cam (18 Mar 2004)

Let‘s get our own orange alert and scare the living <censored> out of everyone every second week, sounds fun. He‘s using this as an excuse to complain about Canada‘s military and defence, pretty sad that the government uses the murder of over 200 people as an excuse to treat use like their whipping boy.


----------



## nbk (18 Mar 2004)

I really dislike Cellucci. This "warning" sounds more like a threat.


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

I remember him stepping on his own tongue fairly recently, i can‘t remember exactly what it said, but it was more mean spirited than constructive.


----------



## NMPeters (18 Mar 2004)

Why do his words offend you two so much? Because they are blunt and not sugar-coated? You people need to take off your rose-coloured glasses. He‘s not using the Madrid bombing as an "excuse to treat use (sic) like their whipping boy." He‘s saying wake-the-FREAK-up because there‘s a real possibility that we could be next.


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

i was just about to edit my post to say 
"But he is upfront and doesn‘t dance around the issue, which is refreshing in a politician.


----------



## clasper (18 Mar 2004)

Ambassador Cellucci isn‘t treating us like his whipping boy, he‘s pointing out that Canada is not immune from terrorist activity.  We may not have as many (or any) high-priority targets like the US does, but we certainly don‘t want to have what Al-Qaeda would consider easy targets, or training grounds.

I‘m not suggesting that every citizen needs to seal their homes with duct tape and plastic wrap, but the average citizen should be more aware of the threats that are out there.  Just because it doesn‘t make sense for AQ to attack Canada, doesn‘t mean it can‘t happen.  I, for one, have not always been able to follow the logic of terrorist organizations.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2004)

> Let‘s get our own orange alert and scare the living <censored> out of everyone every second week, sounds fun. He‘s using this as an excuse to complain about Canada‘s military and defence, pretty sad that the government uses the murder of over 200 people as an excuse to treat use like their whipping boy.


Thank you.  We all really needed the seasoned political observation of a 15 year old cadet.


----------



## John Nayduk (18 Mar 2004)

Corporal Cam and nbk .  If you watch the news at all, you'll notice that with the Madrid bombings, there seems to be a new direction in the terrorist strategy.  Whether you like him or not does not change the threat.  
As well, the Americans and the rest of NATO have every right to complain about the state of our military.  They're probably getting tired of us being the weak link, leeching off the rest of the Alliance.  How many Canadians have to die in another terrorist strike before someone realizes that our military is not capable of defending the country?  
It's probably gotten to the point that it will take more money to get us up to the level of readiness and training than any government is willing to spend.  We'll probably see lots of band-aids but no real solutions to the problems we face in the military.  For a country with the largest landmass on the planet (second largest?) we are pathetically under staffed and under equipped.


----------



## girlfiredup (18 Mar 2004)

Can we become staffed and equipped?  Of course money talks but lets say we had the money for training and equipment, how long would it take the canadian military to operate at a level where we could defend our country?


----------



## nULL (18 Mar 2004)

Wasn‘t Spain probably attacked because they took part in the Iraq occupation? Wouldn‘t we be safer off by becoming more isolationist, and NOT contributing to the "war on terror"? If the "middle ground" really isn‘t safe at all, and the "standing with our allies" strategy is dangerous as well, why not just go completely the other way? For instance, when was the last time Denmark was attacked? 

There are alternatives; just another point of view.


----------



## Danjanou (18 Mar 2004)

nULL, great idea there. We‘ll just go tell our allies, trading partners, friends, and neighbours, that we‘re sitting this one out. However if at later date we‘re attacked could they please, please, pretty please remember their various obligations and treaties and come to our aid.

Works for me. Anyone else?

Oh and to answer your question 1940, and the entire country was completly overrun and occupied in 24 hours. Care to guess why?


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2004)

> Wouldn‘t we be safer off by becoming more isolationist, and NOT contributing to the "war on terror"?


If you knew even the basics of 20th century history, you would know that Isolationism, along with Appeasement, has went to the ashcan of history.



> For instance, when was the last time Denmark was attacked?


MND (SE) 

Denmark has forces in Iraq.  Looks like you need to re-evaluate your thesis.



> There are alternatives; just another point of view.


Yes, there are, however, I remain unconvinced that they are realistic enough to provide a viable solution.


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Mar 2004)

It‘s kind of like thinking that the bull isn‘t going to charge you, because you‘re a vegetarian..


----------



## George Wallace (18 Mar 2004)

How soon we forget!

Canada has already been attacked.  Cpl Murphy was killed by a suicide bomber.  Look at our loses in Afghanistan.  These are terrorists who have done that.  Oh!....but that wasn‘t in Canada, you say.

Sorry....but have you no recollection of the gent from Montreal who got caught trying to smuggle explosives into Washington State.  

IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING HERE!

GW


----------



## jrhume (18 Mar 2004)

I think a fair number of Canadians were killed in the 9/11 attacks.  But, that doesn‘t count, eh?

They shouldn‘t have been in the US at all.  Right?

So it was their own fault.

Islamic radicals don‘t hate Canadians.  Islamic radicals don‘t hate Canadians.  Islamic radicals don‘t hate Canadians.  Islamic radicals . . . .

Keep repeating that mantra, Null, until sharia comes.

 
JR


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

Being away from the "Land of the Maple Leaf", now for going on 10yrs I have never heard of this American Cellucci bloke, but p_i$$ off the political retterick he speaks, and read between the lines to what he is saying. he is infact giving out a warning and a wke up call.

He is right saying that there is problems without the help for his great northern neighbour.

Look at the border for instance, its the longest unguarded border in the world, with not even a fence. Being from Saskatchewan, we used to duck into Montana un-noticed for a few beers, even with our rifles in the truck. I would not want to get caught now doing that, by either side.

Also a closer look should be take on ‘whos flying in‘, or in any way who is coming into Canada by any means.

I cant blame the USA for being tighter on people who enter their country. Afterall the death of 3,000 people, many who were foreigners such as people from the UK, Canada and Australia too. There crime was just being at work.

Its good that Canada is involved, and has given those millions of $$ for this fledgling democracy in Iraq, and I am proud to see CADPAT‘d soldiers on the international news, and saddened when there is fatalities.

On the darker side, the bad guys see this involvment too, and view it as an act of aggression against their ‘cause‘, and therefore you are all in the same boat as us.  

BTW, the guy from Quebec, who tried to smuggle explosives into the USA even made the news here in Australia on the lax borders (some unmanned and remotely operated by video link) between the USA and Canada.

In my view, its not that Canada could see terror attacks, its Canada will see them. Its just a matter of where and when. I hate to even think of such as thing, but thats how it is now, and its worse here, as after 11 Sep, the federal govt put out adds, and a magazine with fridge magnet on who to call and report suspicious terrorist activities, etc. Security hs been beefed up, with dozens of arrests of islamic radicals, of which all have since been released, but I assure you, they are being watched. Hundreds of others are being watched too. And to think, thi is the thanks we as a nation get in return for letting them come here in the first place. Go figure!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Yllw_Ninja (18 Mar 2004)

Sad thing is though, the sooner we get bombed the sooner the general public realize that terrorism is our problem.


----------



## Jungle (18 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Wesley H. Allen, CD:
> [qb]
> BTW, the guy from Quebec, who tried to smuggle explosives into the USA even made the news here in Australia on the lax borders (some unmanned and remotely operated by video link) between the USA and Canada.
> Wes [/qb]


If we‘re talking about the same guy, all he had in his truck was a shotgun. He crossed to the US side (the village is divided by the border) to get gas for his pick-up and was arrested. There were no explosives involved in that incident.
If you‘re talking about another incident, well... carry on !!!


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

It was an other incident, as he had the boot of the car full on explosives. He was a non-Cdn, but passed thru the border, and I forget where, but I am sure it was pre 11 Sep 01.


----------



## Danjanou (18 Mar 2004)

Sounds like the guy caught at the BC/Washington border (Blaine Wash?) in Dec 1999. He planned to blow up LAX on New Years Eve IIRC. 

He was from the Montreal Area. Not originally though as he came into the country from Algeria on a forged visa, made a phony refugee claim, and then disappeared, after using forged documents to get a Canadian passport (a la Day of the Jackal).


----------



## Jungle (18 Mar 2004)

Ok, I remember that incident. Yes, it was an Algerian living in Montréal who tried to cross the border in the BC area. But the crossing was manned, and he was caught by a US agent after successfully leaving Canada with a trunk full of explosives. He was going to blow something up in LA on Y2K.
His name was Ahmed Ressam.
The terrorist within


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Mar 2004)

>Wouldn‘t we be safer off by becoming more isolationist, and NOT contributing to the "war on terror"?

No, that just changes your place in line.  I would rather get out of the line altogether by extinguishing the problem.


----------



## Travis (18 Mar 2004)

See.. I myself am 16 and i can tell you exactly why you dont have scores of youngsters entering the Canadian Military.  There scared.  There scared because they believe the Canadian Military is one of the worst in the world with all its funding cut backs and compared to the US Military and there Fancy gadgets that we see everyday on TV....    

Another problem is also there advertiseing method.  I mean lets be honest your tryin to recruit.  To do this you wan amplify the glory of it all.  When i see an american add and them talking about honor and there wicked helicopters it gets the blood pumpin.  Then i see a Canadian advertisment..  Whoopee there on a boat.. it isnt even a carrier ship its a boat with no gun on it.   Look at it from the youngsters perspective.   

Also!.     When i got the sheet for the army do you have any idea what it says for related Civy jobs??  Truck Driver... Security Guard.    Are the people who make those COMPLETE Idiots... Honestly they must have a brain problem.  why would I want to waste a few years of my life and sign off some freedoms to only to become a Truck Driver in the end of it.  What they need to do is put examples of where they leader ship skills gained can get you.  

See the problem with Canadians is they think itll NEVER happen to them... I mean why would they attack us,accordin to everyone where only Americas Bitch.  For good reason!  But they see our men in Afghanistan.  They see them thwarting terrorism around the world.  Whos to say we aint stirrin the nest.


----------



## Travis (18 Mar 2004)

and besides beefin up the borders aint gona hurt anybody but the right people.  ~~The right people being the Terrorists.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

Frankly Travis, I would rather be inconvienced at a border crossing for a few extra minutes, then have a terr discretely cross over and do something nasty to an unsuspecting public, which might even me you!.

Beefed up borders also ensure that illegal aliens, drugs, illegal guns and other contraband cant get thru as easy either.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Travis (18 Mar 2004)

Thas what im sayin..  beefed up borders is good.  The right people being the terrorists    Sorry aboutt he misunderstanding in my writing there heh


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

No worries, I guess I should have read iinto it better.
Cheers,

Wes


----------



## nULL (19 Mar 2004)

ok, just got back from work, so my rebuttal is a bit late....ok, if keeping to ourselves is a bad idea, why don‘t "we" send our forces to do good elsewhere, and leave the stuff that may backfire (as in retaliatory strikes) to someone else? For instance, supposing the CF committed itself wholeheartedly to stopping the mass carnage and civil wars in Africa, and there just weren‘t enough troops *wink wink* to commit to any operations against an international terrorist organization which has sleeper cells throughout the world. We could support the "war on terror" in "spirit" and instead be doing good elsewhere. The middle east isn‘t the only, or even the worst, unstable region in the world. 

As for everyone loving Canada, of course i know that‘s not true. But I also know that if you‘re standing next to a guy throwing rocks, eventually someone is going to throw something back, and the odds are eventually, something is going to hit you.

Weak analogy, but the Canadian government should be looking at protecting Canadians, not North America. The Americans are not our "brothers", they‘re our neighbours, and the government should be doing whatever it can to protect the citizens of Canada. If that means that you stop watering your neighbours‘ lawn every time they ask, and they stop bringing you casserole, then so be it.

(remember, we‘re their largest trade partner too, and the US economy is not yet in a state to start roughing up one‘s trading partners.) 

I know it‘s a weak analogy, but hey, I have a weak arguement. Well, no, but I think I‘m making a point. Canada has not been attacked....yet. 9/11 was not an attack on Canada, I‘m quite certain that Osama Bin Laden was not sitting in a cave going "okay guys, we‘ll target the largest, most visible buildings in the city. if we‘re lucky, there will be some Canadians in it".  Of course, I have no way of knowing that, but meh.

To summarize my point...Canada has not been attacked directly. Until that day (hopefully never), nobody can bash the Canadian government, or CSIS, but not doing their jobs. Given our "lack" of commitment to the war on terror (as Cellucci said) one could only assume that the only real threat to our safety is our proximity and close (?) relationship to the United States.

Again, just an alternative point of view. _FOR DISCUSSION._

Travis:
I think the reason they put "truck driver" and "boring" stuff is to encourage the right kind of people to join. I mean, if I was running the army, I wouldn‘t want people to join who just wanted to imagine that they‘d spend the whole time blowing up random stuff, firing hundreds of rounds of ammunition at brush while there is no ememy around, and learning how to snap necks. (If i‘m wrong though, then HOT ****) The way the application worded everything, I think they wanted to portray the army as a "real" job, meaning you have to deal with lots of stupid, unpleasant people 24/7 and put up with super boring trash....just like everyone else. For instance, the infantry info sheet said that "the job of the infantry is to do blah blah blah"

did you notice how they never said that *you‘d* be doing it?


----------



## George Wallace (19 Mar 2004)

Travis

Please learn to spell and use grammar.  "Ain‘t is not a word, and if you use it as a double negative, you contradict your own arguement.  I am having a hard time trying to figure out what you are trying to say, especially when you can‘t use the correct words.  There are great differences in the words: THERE, THEIR, THEY‘RE and WHERE, WERE, WARE, WE‘RE.  Correct punctuation would also help.  Thanks.

As for comparing a Military job to a Civie job, what do you expect?  There are no jobs for Tank drivers or Infantry men on Civie Street.  There are, however, Heavy Equipment Operator or Security jobs.  

GW


----------



## George Wallace (19 Mar 2004)

nULL


> To summarize my point...Canada has not been attacked directly. Until that day (hopefully never), nobody can bash the Canadian government, or CSIS,* but not doing their jobs*. Given our "lack" of commitment to the war on terror (as Cellucci said) one could only assume that the only real threat to our safety is our proximity and close (?) relationship to the United States.


Open your eys.  Canadians have been killed.  Terrorists have been found in Canada.  Do you work on another planet?  The Canadian Government and CSIS do have to do their jobs, and do their jobs NOW.  

Our proximity to the US is a contributing factor.  To use your example: If you are standing next to a guy (say a G-7 protester wearing a black belaclava) throwing rocks at someone (say a cop) you are likely to be affected in a rather rude way.  You‘ll likely be thrown into the back of a paddy wagon with your rock throwing friend.  Are you begining to catch our drift?  If terrorists are attacking Spain, France and Iraq, what makes you think Canada, which is already on the AQ list, will be exempt?

GW


----------



## Travis (19 Mar 2004)

Gear down turbo. George.  I forgot you old ones dont understand the current Hip-Hop Lingo. My bad.. or whoops.  I am sorry my fellow man.      .An educated person would know that the "lingo" is actually the evolution of a language.    

~~
Now your not looking at it from the perspective of a student whos bringin in 80 and 90%.   Truck Driver.  Security Guard. There is absolutley no incentive.   

What I found with the American commercials is that they actually show a situation where the ex- infantry soldier has gained the responsibility, and leadership (Along with the education recieved from the government) that allows a major corporation to take his training in the military seriously and welcome it.   I know so many people who dont even have a clue that the Canadian Army will pay for your college.  Or the reserves will give you 2k towards college.   Its more, why would i join to become a janiter in the end when I can go to college/university and make somthing of myself. 


Ya Sorry I got off topic


----------



## Franko (19 Mar 2004)

Me thinks someone is a prime candidate for the Darwin Award, eh George? Travis will do well going to college....

" Its more, why would i join to become a *janiter* in the end when I can go to college/university and make somthing of myself."

"Yo G you be down dog" it‘s janitor.... moron     

I hope your parents know of your spelling problems BEFORE they pay out good coin for a virtual black hole.....ah forget it. It‘s like talking to a brick wall. You‘d be lucky to get a job at Mc Donalds flipping burgers.

‘nuff said...but I digress

Regards


----------



## Danjanou (19 Mar 2004)

Travis just out of curiousity do you have any idea what a good long distance truck driver makes?

Also while entry level security guards don‘t pull in a lot, at the top end of their profession ie CPO, or armed guards such as those with Brinks etc make a fairly decent wage.

I‘d bet it‘s more than some university educated IT, type who is now discovering the joys of being a "latte technician" at Starbucks.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Mar 2004)

I know Franko.

Everyone knows our true troubles lay in our proximity to the US.  We are likely to suffer ‘collateral‘ damage due to that fact.  It is time that we unhooked the mooring lines and set sail for some other continent.  Perhaps set up off the coast of China and let all our Communist sympathizers can feel more at home.  However, that would put us too close to the largest Islamic populations in the world.  So maybe we ought to move to off the coast of Africa.....   

GW


----------



## wongskc (19 Mar 2004)

While I do agree that Canada should be stepping up security and providing more funding to the CF, CSIS, customs, CSE, etc.  we should not forget that Cellecuci(sp?) represent‘s the interests of his country first.  He‘s not concerned for Canada, but rather, the benifits that the US can gain.  Whether this is added security or whatever, he is only concerned with us sinking money in so that in the process we end up protecting the US as well as ourselves.


----------



## nULL (19 Mar 2004)

> To summarize my point...Canada has not been attacked directly. Until that day (hopefully never), nobody can bash the Canadian government, or CSIS,* but not doing their jobs*. Given our "lack" of commitment to the war on terror (as Cellucci said) one could only assume that the only real threat to our safety is our proximity and close (?) relationship to the United States.


That should have read "*for* not doing their jobs." stupid hands.



> Open your eys.  Canadians have been killed.  Terrorists have been found in Canada.  Do you work on another planet?  The Canadian Government and CSIS do have to do their jobs, and do their jobs NOW.


I never said they weren‘t in Canada. That‘s why the authorities should do their best to locate them and get rid of them. My point was, why should we have to find them _after_ they strike? Why should we have dead on _our_ soil for someone else? Save for the FLQ, and that Ajaib Singh Bagri prick, there haven‘t been any major strikes in Canadian subways or aircraft, at least none from Al-Quaeda. Well, nothing publicized at least. So your point about how the RCMP/CSIS need to _start_ doing their jobs is...null.



> Our proximity to the US is a contributing factor.  To use your example: If you are standing next to a guy (say a G-7 protester wearing a black belaclava) throwing rocks at someone (say a cop) you are likely to be affected in a rather rude way.  You‘ll likely be thrown into the back of a paddy wagon with your rock throwing friend.  Are you begining to catch our drift?  If terrorists are attacking Spain, France and Iraq, what makes you think Canada, which is already on the AQ list, will be exempt?


for one thing, i don‘t goto those retarded riots. i‘ve always enjoyed seeing groups of students getting gassed and peppersprayed; whenever there is a protest, i watch it live on Newsnet. To continue the same anaology though, the cops usually catch and beat the ones closest to the front line. Sure, the guy with his shirt off, screaming the loudest, and thrashing the most may be getting his point out the clearest, and hey, he‘s probably earned the respect of all the other protestors, but he‘s still going to be the first that gets hit in the face with the tear gas canister.

In case that arguement is a little "hazy" for you, put it another way; If we are a junior member of the war on terror, or even a junior-junior member, we can leave the real fighting (and threat of reprisal attacks) to others. For instance, my prediction for the day is that the pakistani president is going to be dead soon for his part in the large offensive going on right now on the pakastani border.


----------



## clasper (19 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by nULL:
> [qb]  For instance, my prediction for the day is that the pakistani president is going to be dead soon for his part in the large offensive going on right now on the pakastani border. [/qb]


So if Ayman al-Zawahri was hiding out in Flin Flon, we shouldn‘t go after him for fear that Paul Martin becomes a target of assassination?

We certainly would go after him, and we‘d work hard to prepare for the possible consequences.  We should also prepare for the possible consequences of our role so far.


----------



## nULL (19 Mar 2004)

Just as a side note...

 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc 

Look at the bottom of the story.

_The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.

"Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?" the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets. _

Note Canada is not on that list.


----------



## scm77 (19 Mar 2004)

WOW! What a relief.  Okay people shows over, no need to worry.  The crackpot "terrorist spokesman" didn‘t mention Canada in the list so there is no need to be alarmed.

If you see a arabic person paking a truck next to a nuclear plant and then running away, he‘s probably just making a delivery.  No need to worry.

I‘ll sleep better tonight.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Mar 2004)

I wouild gladly give up some of my civil rights to ensure my country is a safer place for us all. But the snivel libertarians see it differrently, and hence there can be a hesitation to pass better and stronger laws to protect the public, such as powers of arrest, and detaining for questioning, etc.

I dont mind if my flight is delayed to to more security, or if I have to report in earlier. better late than vapourised.

here in Australia to mail a parcel overseas, you must present picture ID, and that is entered on a giant hard drive. the parcel is given a bar code, and it all matches to you. 100% of all mail parcels are inspected on incoming and outgoing.

All this to make it more safe for us all. Is Canada screening its parcels like this too? do you fell its an envasion of ones rights? I don‘t, and it also stops other contraband from coming and going too.

Personally Canada, along with Australia are prime easy targets for AQ supported groups.

Sadly one day, its us who is going to be on CNN or FOX news,a s the world watches our sorrow in horror. I sure hope I am wrong.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Mar 2004)

Bloody helll! Excuse my spelling mistakes. sheesh, how I ewver got out of High Scholl, I‘ll never know.
Cheers,

Weso


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (19 Mar 2004)

well, I knew what you were saying..so thats the main thing


----------



## corporal-cam (20 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] Thank you.  We all really needed the seasoned political observation of a 15 year old cadet. [/qb]


1st, thanks for not insulting me, always nice to know I‘m welcome here.
2nd, I‘m entitled to an opinion, you may not like it because I‘m a moron cadet who, (in your mind) thinks he‘s better than you. I may not have your superior training as a soldier but I can still be informed as an individual, and I don‘t know about the rest of the topic but in this post all you did was bash me and contribute nothing to the discussion and cause this whole defense. What a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## Brian McMillan (20 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by corporal-cam:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


Not to worry, lad; Infanteer was the unfortunate result of thalidomide poisoning.


----------



## Travis (20 Mar 2004)

Its not what I think its what the MASS thinks.  Its my rant on how the recruiting system is completely foolish and appeals to the ones who think they have no choice BUT becoming a Truck Driver.  Now your not thinking of the respect factor..  *sigh* Any Psychologist‘s here to help me with this. The military needs to start strengthoning there image at the roots.  If they want to recurit more men into this military they need to fight that psychological war with the kids who WILL run the country one day.  Out of 10 people 9 of them will ask if im crazy for joining the Canadian Army.  They say... Why not the United States Army.  You see how there fancy commercials have helped them.  

Dang Franko, you put this 16 yr old back in his place.   Good Job!  To Cam.  Dont worry about them I doubt arse‘s like them are really in the military.  Ive met some WICKED people in the army.  True soldiers you kno the ones who will educate you, and respect you as you respect them instead of put you down.  Those guys (Franko) obviously arnt them.  Im sorry I listen to hip- hop music and speak the future english language.  Wait no... I really aint. Theres a reason why we dont speak Old English anymore.  Dont see me makin fun of your hic/ let the bodies hit the floor music.   I dont believe i said "Yo" or "dwag" once.  *sigh* you obviously werent breast fed.


----------



## nULL (20 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by scm77:
> [qb] WOW! What a relief.  Okay people shows over, no need to worry.  The crackpot "terrorist spokesman" didn‘t mention Canada in the list so there is no need to be alarmed.
> 
> If you see a arabic person paking a truck next to a nuclear plant and then running away, he‘s probably just making a delivery.  No need to worry.
> ...


In an interesting case of double standards, had the "crackpot terrorist spokesperson" actually mentioned Canada, you‘d be using it to _your_ advantage. 

And Travis, you should try being a janitor...it‘s really rather educational. For instance, in my house, whenever there was "stuff" underneath the seat, people would automatically assume it was me, as I was the only guy. Turns out that women can get "stuff" under there too, and they‘re 100x messier than guys too.

This conversation was getting silly, I had to try and kill it.

EDIT: And if I see a white guy parking a truck next to a nuclear plant, I should just assume (based on your racial stereotypes) that he‘s using the truck to block the view of his cousin-father Jim-Jim and nephew-son in law Billy-Ray lynchin‘ blacks and makin‘ burr. Right?


----------



## nULL (20 Mar 2004)

Oops again I‘m a moron


----------



## nULL (20 Mar 2004)

Double Post, oops


----------



## Travis (20 Mar 2004)

*Applauds nULL‘s last statement* Although we must admit that it is more likely to be someone of Arab decent.


----------



## Franko (20 Mar 2004)

Sorry troops, Travis convinced me....STAT

Regards


----------



## Thompson_JM (20 Mar 2004)

Good Lord... without naming names, I must say there really are some less then bright people posting allot on this thread.. 

Perhaps some of then should realize that Just because a post has allot of rambling words in it. Does not mean it is a good argument... 

By the way, for a couple of you... when I worked as a janitor for the school boards I started at 17 bucks an hour.. It goes up to about 22 after a few years. And Civie Truckers can make some pretty good money as well.. As can security guards, if they are higher up and doing something like Close Protection, or the like.

Now as to the subject of this thread. Canada is not immune to terror, and it never will be. So rather then playing Ostrich, those who feel that we are invisible to terrorists should take their heads OUT of the sand, and start figuring out how we can protect our country, and our continent from any further attacks. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. How would you feel if Canada did get attacked and your Wife, girlfriend, mother, father, husband, etc.. was killed...  I bet the first question you would probably ask, is "Why didn't we see this coming?"
Oh that's right.. Because we live in Canada, and everybody loves Canadians.. So we didn't have to worry about getting hit...  No matter what argument you present to us, it doesn't matter, the bottom line in the debate is that Canada is at risk, and Does have to prepare as best it can to prepare, prevent, and react to a terrorist attack. Since 9/11 the game has changed, we‘re no longer fighting big bad nazis or evil commies in Europe.. We're fighting an enemy we can barely see. This enemy doesn't play by any sort of rules nor does it care who it kills. It will use any means necessary to achieve its goals, and will stop at nothing until they are (achieved). A terrorist would just as willingly blow up a bus of nuns and orphans as they would an LAV III full of soldiers. In fact, given the choice, they would take the bus as its easier to hit, and will be more effective at furthering their sick cause.

Bottom Line. We need to prepare. And I pray to God, that when it does happen, I‘ll be fortunate enough to not loose any of my loved ones. Because I don't believe its a matter of "if" anymore. It's a Matter of "When"...


*Edit: My Appologies for the Long post. but i needed to get that off my chest. <end rant>*


----------



## Brian McMillan (20 Mar 2004)

Finally, the voice of reason!  Well said, Thompson, I like your style.


----------



## girlfiredup (20 Mar 2004)

Ok so we know we‘re not immuned to terror, it‘s all around us.. we know that we are at risk, we know that we need to prepare, we know that we need to protect our country, so now what?  March the steps of Parliament Hill?  It‘s all about the $$$.


----------



## Recce41 (20 Mar 2004)

Being prepared is one thing, but to be like to US is another. **** I was home in Jan for a week. I couldn‘t even cross the boarder. It was backup for miles. Then when I did get to cross the **** US Customs Storm Troopers gave me a hard time because I had a NB license and driving a Ont Car.I guess my Military ID, DL, and BC. Couldn‘t prove I was who we were. A55holes.
 By the way, dogs don‘t s456 in their kennel.


----------



## Jmacca (20 Mar 2004)

Well Im just going to add my thoughts here. As much of you said Canada is in no condition to really compete with the world, and despite how well our men and women are trained for whatever we would not stand a chance in anything. 

Realistically we 100% rely on the protection and support of United States, and Britain. Without them we would crumble military wise. Ask yourself the question, could Canada have gone to Iraq as the United States did without the backing of any countries initially? No, not at all. I seriously think Iraq would have crushed us unless we sent every last troop we had over there and hoped they ran out of ammo or something. 

Canada is never going to change on its own power if you ask me, and its going to take further hassle and complaints from UN misitry and US ministry before it gets any attention. Even then its going to take a devistating attack on something like downtown Toronto, Parliment buildings, TSE buildings.. before any real amount of civi‘s want to do anything about it. Canada has the yearly money to do it, we really could, but we need to set our priorities to what it really matters. People arent going to want to put military on the agenda, or want to fight for more troops until its to late, until we are being attacked or we have lost 1000‘s of people. Even then people will find a way to reverse it all. Everywhere I go, everyone says " Its America‘s fault, its America‘s war!" but really if it werent for them we would be toast. No matter what you say we owe our position to them. They do what they need to defend their allies, their country, their people and they do it by all means. Sometimes its not a decision that best suits everyone but it is often needed.

A little off topic here but Canada‘s main priority is obviously healthcare, right? What I dont understand is, despite it being our number one priority its still horribly flawed and junked in alot of areas. Sure it beats alot of places but for it being a #1 priority of a country with that much money I would hope for something ALOT better. United States, who does not have free health care, does not have it as a top priority - probably around the equivalent to military importance in an election, has more nurses, more doctors, better pay? How does that make sense, for a country that has something at a less priority they sure do have alot of spare cash to waiste on it, and they can afford to double the pay of our doctors here. 

What Im getting at is we need to straighten our policies out and really target as to what we need. Our health care money is spent wrong, waisted in alot of cases, and our military funding is not only lowish but spent in horrible areas. We need a politician who is fresh from the CF, much like it is in the United States ( Bush and many other leaders served military time I believe ) and someone who understands the situation within. 

Personally, I would much rather have the money spent on health care on military, and the military funding on health care but of it could and would never happen.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Mar 2004)

In Australia two tiers of heath care, public and private. Public is free, and not the best. Private costs about $60/mo for a single, plus a one off $500 excess if one goes in the hospital valid for that callender yr. The ADF covers soldiers anyways, but I often wonder what they are capable of, and the quality of care, etc.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## kaspacanada (24 Mar 2004)

I don‘t like the message that Celluci is passing on, or at least how he is going about delivering it.  Canada should do this, Canada should do that.  Canada should, can, and will do what IT thinks is right regardless of the consequences.  The people of Canada feel that we are not at risk and that we have other more important priorities. 

     While I am inclined to believe that we are at risk, and that we should not wait until something has happened before we act, I don‘t think the only solutions include arming ourselves to the teeth, chanting the national anthem in a cult-like manner, and going on invading other sovereign states with our MVP the United States, on their whim.  We can condemn terrorist tactics, groups and individuals, we can search for them without invading other countries, we can contribute to the war on terror by trying to be the best people and country that we can be within the international community and taking care of our responsibilities at home, and ‘doing good‘ abroad.  Contributing to UN interventions to prevent attrocities, peacekeeping, helping the developing world and helping other countries will help us.  We can also try to strengthen internatioanl institutions such as INTERPOL, the new International Criminal Court, and also to try and improve cooperation between respective national security agencies not just between us and US, but between many others too.  (I am not ignoring the funding or recruiting deficiencies of our military, just stating how else we can contribute to the war on ‘terrorism‘)

     States have obligations to make sure that attacks against other nations do not originate on their soil under international customs and laws, and that‘s why we went into Afghanistan.  As a nation, and as Canadians, we have an obligation to make sure ‘terrorists‘ do not operate within our own borders to attack targets at home, or anywhere else in the world, not just the US.  But invading countries, upsetting populations already filled with at the very least, a strong, distrust of western countries, only helps feed their (terrorist groups) ranks.  They have to get here to perpetrate their disgusting deeds, and I think that we should make that as difficult for them as possible.

Jmacca

Re: "America does not have free health care" In their defence, YES they do.  If you are below a certain poverty level there is medicaide.  However, there are still roughly 40 million people how make just enough to be uneligible for medicaide, but don‘t make enough to afford private health care insurance.   But that is way WAY off topic.  The answer to your question about how they do it is in their economy.  Now it might not be the best at the moment, but they have roughly 300 million people that SPEND their money and take more credit than any other country in the world to continue to SPEND.  Tax revenue for them is FAR greater than us, and many other countries in the world.  That is how they do it.

    Last Friday I had a short conversation with the Minister of National Defence David Pratt and his top notch Davide Price at a mess dinner here, and also heard them speak and respond to questions.  They had also discussed training the reserves to deal with responding to terrorist attacks (re:NBC in particular) as it was one of the only national institutions available to do so.  At least that is the way that they are looking at it.

  Now although Mr. Pratt doesn‘t have military experience, he does have a strong background in parliamentary committees to know mroe about what he is talking about than many other politicians and former ministers.  Mr. Price, who has been working with Mr. Pratt for a LONG time, on the contrary DOES have military experience from the reserve regiment that I am volunteering with, to the regular force as well.  (If I heard him correctly - my french abilities are limited but improving but he definitely worked in the reserves, and I am 90% sure he was in the reg force.)  So to quench your thirst for a ‘military politician‘, there‘s some information.


Sorry for the long post gents but I think it was worth it.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (19 Sep 2008)

Well this thread has been collecting dust but it seems a valid place to plop this tidbit of news. Anyways without further adieu.

 Cheers.

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/437869


Toronto terror video posted on US website

Isabel Teotonio
Torstar News Service

A video that shows members of the Toronto 18 carrying out alleged terrorist training exercises has been posted on an American website just days before a verdict is expected in the case of one of the men.
The video includes footage of the men in camouflage allegedly receiving instruction on the use of handguns and sniper tactics at a 12-day camp they attended in December 2005, near the town of Washago, Ont.
The two-and-a-half minute video is similar to others that have been shown during court proceedings for the 14 adults and four youths, who were charged in the summer of 2006 with belonging to a cell plotting an attack in Canada.
Since then, charges have been stayed against three youths and four adults.
Most recently, a similar video of the camp, where attendees allegedly practised military-style exercises, was shown at the trial of the remaining youth, who is now 20. A verdict in that trial is expected next Thursday in a Brampton court.
The judge presiding over that trial issued a publication ban on any evidence that might identify the adult co-accused, in an effort to ensure their right to a fair trial. Consequently, he prohibited the public release of exhibits that had been entered as evidence, such as wiretap intercepts or videos.
Similarly, a judge who presided over the preliminary hearing for the adults issued a publication ban on the evidence in those proceedings. The online video is similar to what was shown in court, but not identical.
In addition to firearms training, the online video also shows a nighttime campfire and a van skidding around a darkened Canadian Tire parking lot.
In the youth trial, the Crown must prove a terror group existed and that the youth knowingly participated in it.
Mubin Shaikh, 32, a police agent who infiltrated the group and who is one of the only men clearly identified in the video, has testified there was an "overt military context to the training" at the December camp.
However, he also said the youths were told it was a "religious" outing and were never told details about a terror plot in the works.
The group was allegedly scheming to attack power grids, Parliament buildings, CBC headquarters and the Toronto offices of the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. 

See the video at Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation.


----------



## gun runner (19 Sep 2008)

Ok, well that was rather informative. So now do we post all non-roto reserve units on active duty at all of the potential targets of opportunity? Or do we stop the immigration and visa admittance of all foreigners in an attempt to stop possible terror cells from forming? This is called ISOLATIONISM, and doesn't help at all. If there are cells at work in the country, we will get them before they get us. Our forces of detection are not fools or idiots. " If you wait by the river long enough, you will see the bodies of your enemies float past you" TSUN TSU. Ubique


----------

