# Terrorist threat



## Nielsen_Noetic (11 Mar 2005)

I was just wondering what you men and women in the army thought was the most likely target.


----------



## winchable (11 Mar 2005)

You missed the entire atlantic region.

*phew* I'm safe


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (11 Mar 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> You missed the entire atlantic region.
> 
> *phew* I'm safe


It only gave me five options, I picked the biggest cities and the capital.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 Mar 2005)

I suspect Toronto or Ottawa would be bigger "prizes" as it were, however I understand that Vancouver's port is particularly vulnerable.


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (11 Mar 2005)

I say it would either be Flin Flon, Manitoba or Sarnia, Ontario.


----------



## Blue Max (11 Mar 2005)

I picked Montreal because of large Arab immigrant population, close to US east seaboard and large population centers. As well the corrupt nature of inport/export facilities as well as crime syndicates in general for the Montreal area. 

This is not to say that Vancouver doesn' t have most of the same conditions, just my feeling that Montreal may be more ripe.

B M.


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (11 Mar 2005)

According to you people I'm pretty safe here in cowtown ;D


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (11 Mar 2005)

Seriously though,

While I am not saying that Canada would never be the target of a terrorist attack, the chances are slim.  It is much more likely that Canada would be used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks against the US.  This argument has been made numerous times.  Our proximity to the US, the rather porous nature of our borders, our lax border control and immigration policies and our large immigrant populations, the availability of useful off-the-shelf technologies etc. make Canada an ideal staging point where terrorists can blend in quite easily.

After the US, Canada has more terrorist organizations operating within its borders then any other country in the world (Accoding to CSIS).

Everyone remembers Ahmed Ressam...

Something to consider...


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (12 Mar 2005)

This may sound a bit vindictive in nature but maybe the western world should fight fire with fire. Would it be possible for a western nation to fund christian fundamentalists to launch attacks against the east and get away with it?
Probably not eh, well I guess it's for the better, this way we can claim to be morally superior while we bomb their countries. Well while the U.S. does so anyways.


----------



## paracowboy (12 Mar 2005)

Nielsen_Noetic said:
			
		

> This may sound a bit vindictive in nature but maybe the western world should fight fire with fire. Would it be possible for a western nation to fund christian fundamentalists to launch attacks against the east and get away with it?
> Probably not eh, well I guess it's for the better, this way we can claim to be morally superior while we bomb their countries. Well while the U.S. does so anyways.


yeah, that'll work. Couldn't possibly backfire in any way. :  Never mind that's immoral, illegal, and a whole hockey-sock of negative-sounding "i" words, it's silly. By making things better for those suffering under oppressive regimes (bullies, by any definition), we take away any real interest (a positive "i" word) in their attacking us. All we're doin' right now, is rippin' off a band-aid. Me, I prefer to do it quick and get it over with. You let it sit too long, it gets infected.


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (13 Mar 2005)

Thank you for explaining all the impalpable irony and humour in my post I'm sure everyone benefited from your obvious assesment. :


----------



## paracowboy (13 Mar 2005)

Nielsen_Noetic said:
			
		

> Thank you for explaining all the impalpable irony and humour in my post I'm sure everyone benefited from your obvious assesment. :


that's why you use the li'l smiley faces.  Like at the end of your last post. Nice use of the word "impalpable", by the way. You never really see it any more.  ;D Although, I don't think I explained much of anything in the way of humour or irony, I just jumped your shit,is all.


----------



## Torlyn (13 Mar 2005)

Nielsen_Noetic said:
			
		

> Well while the U.S. does so anyways.



Don't you think it's about time to get off your anti-American high horse?  Why is it that you must blame either the Americans or the current Liberal government for every perceived "problem" you find in the world?  Stop being a hypocrite!  First you question as to whether or not we should fight fire with fire, then you pull a John Kerry and totally flip your stance by berate the US for strategic bombing.  You're young, and obviously have very biased views on certain things.  Instead of letting all of these little jabs loose in your posts, try saying something with substance.  People might actually listen.

T


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (13 Mar 2005)

No you just showed all the holes in the argument for what I was suggesting which showed to everyone the humour and irony in it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Mar 2005)

??? ??? ??? ???   WHAT!


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (13 Mar 2005)

I like the United States. Because I mentioned that they were the ones doing the majority of war making on our behalf does not mean I do not care for them. Even if I did have some kind of grudge against the United States how did you get from my comments that I somehow felt superior to them or anyone else? I blame the liberals for the majority of problems in this country as they have been the government for more than a decade, logically most of the current problems we have are their fault. It seems according to your Kerry quip that your not a fan of the left either.


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (14 Mar 2005)

I think the West misses the whole point when we try and deal with terrorism.  Instead of using stop gap solutions we need to look at the underlying causes.  We have to ask ourselves why these people are doing things like this to us.  Many of those who are involved in terrorist activities and support terrorist groups feel that their culture, identity and values are being eroded by processes such as globaliztion, driven largely by Western economic expansion.  Only by truly understanding the psychology and sociology of these groups will we be able to defeat them.  That means getting into their heads and their mindset and trying to understand how they think and why they do the things they do.

Bombing the hell out of them is only a short term solution and will just perpetuate the problem.  And I'm sorry, but any suggestion of employing christian fundamentalist groups to engage in terrorism is a total farce...


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (14 Mar 2005)

And stop blaming the liberals for everything...


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (14 Mar 2005)

I don't blame the liberals for EVERYTHING and the things I do blame them for is their fault, and where did that come from anyways?


----------



## Buzz (14 Mar 2005)

Hey where is Winnipeg in the vote??


----------



## badpup (14 Mar 2005)

Buzz said:
			
		

> Hey where is Winnipeg in the vote??



I think you are fairly safe in Winnipeg, Islamic extremists come mostly from "warm" climates   :dontpanic:


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (14 Mar 2005)

As far as Manitoba is concerend, I think Flin Flon is of much more strategic importance than Winnipeg.  The massive concentration of industry, culture and political power in the thriving metropolis of Flin Flon makes it an ideal target for any terrorist group bold enough to venture an attack against Canada.

 ;D


----------



## Rfn (14 Mar 2005)

> > Insert Quote
> > Quote from: Buzz on Today at 11:43:14
> > Hey where is Winnipeg in the vote??
> 
> ...



Buzz has a good point...Winnipeg is very vulnerable. A few successful attacks on some power pylons would be a disaster, at this time of year. Hundreds of thousands of people without power in the middle of winter...


----------



## Torlyn (14 Mar 2005)

Nielsen_Noetic said:
			
		

> No you just showed all the holes in the argument for what I was suggesting which showed to everyone the humour and irony in it.



I don't know why I still keep wasting my time trying to get some sort of comment from you that acutally makes some level of sense, but here I am.  WTF are you trying to say here?  It makes no sense, isn't funny, and certainly isn't ironic.  (Unless of course you're taking your definition of ironic from Alanis Morriesette, but really)  Clarity is good, my boy.  Strive to achieve it here, will you?

T


----------



## Buzz (14 Mar 2005)

Rfn said:
			
		

> I think you are fairly safe in Winnipeg, Islamic extremists come mostly from "warm" climates
> 
> Buzz has a good point...Winnipeg is very vulnerable. A few successful attacks on some power pylons would be a disaster, at this time of year. Hundreds of thousands of people without power in the middle of winter...



Wasn't my point.   But now that you bring it up it in your comment,it could prove to be true.   Certain key targetted areas could prove to cause some havoc not only against citizens of MB but on a much broader scale. But we won't go into detail.     


-Buzz


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (14 Mar 2005)

It's ironic that you would assume to have more clarity than me entailing that you are more intelligent yet cannot understand my posts.

That's my definition of irony. :


----------



## dutchie (14 Mar 2005)

Nielsen_Noetic said:
			
		

> It's ironic that you would assume to have more clarity than me entailing that you are more intelligent yet cannot understand my posts.
> 
> That's my definition of irony. :



I think you to take out the big words and tell us what in God's name your saying. I've read your post 5 times, and I can't tell where the grammatical errors start, and where they end.
You make no sense.


----------



## badpup (14 Mar 2005)

Children..... just wait until your father gets home!!!!!
sarcasm and humour aside, personal attacks should be reserved for an enemy on the battlefield. This is really not the place,it is a forum for Military and political issues, and in this country all have a right to voice an opinion.


----------



## Torlyn (14 Mar 2005)

Nielsen_Noetic said:
			
		

> It's ironic that you would assume to have more clarity than me entailing that you are more intelligent yet cannot understand my posts.



Frankly, I just found this funny.  

Caesar - Apparently we're just not smart enough.  Well, back to banging my head on the wall.  

T


----------



## TCBF (14 Mar 2005)

"Bombing the heck out of them is only a short term solution and will just perpetuate the problem."

Depends how many you kill when you bomb them.  It DOES cut down on repeat offenders.  This does, however, have to be conducted with other operations on the political and civil front.  But that doesn't mean you stop bombing.  The three complement each other.

Tom


----------



## badpup (15 Mar 2005)

Yes, 1 well placed bomb can ruin Osama's Day completely  :crybaby:


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (15 Mar 2005)

"Depends how many you kill when you bomb them.  It DOES cut down on repeat offenders.  This does, however, have to be conducted with other operations on the political and civil front.  But that doesn't mean you stop bombing.  The three complement each other."

Excellent point...the only problem is, countries like the US and the UK have leaned heavily on the bombing side of things and haven't really made any effort to understand what it is these people are fighting for/against.  I'm in no way condoning terrorism, I'm just saying that the "war on terrorism" would be much more effective if all these so-called "counter-terrorism" experts in the US actually understood the underlying political, economic and social causes of terrorism rather then focusing solely on short term solutions like "target-hardening" and all that fun stuff.  Sure it will make the jobs of the terrorists harder, but will it eliminate them...no it won't.  Sure bombing will eliminate repeat offenders...but as long as the causative factors behind terrorism still remain, then more terrorists will come to take the place of those killed by American bombs.


----------



## vangemeren (15 Mar 2005)

How about the Ambassador bridge, 25% of all merchandise trade between the United States and Canada crosses the bridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_Bridge

or the Trans Canada pipeline, or the power grid. (think back to the big blackout). I could think of many different targets that are not particular to any city. To try to protect every single possible target is impossible. Good intelligence is key, so that the resources that we use for defense are used most effectively.

The current talk here about a multi-pronged offensive is good. I'm going to add that some terorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah act like a quasi-government by offereing social programs to gain support for themselves.


----------



## Jonny Boy (15 Mar 2005)

i think toronto. think of what a bomb would do in crowded downtown toronto. i know that when 9\11 happend downtown Toronto was evacuated and was ready for an attack. i think they were really worried about a plane going into the CN tower.


----------

