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

[Centurian1985]

I thought this article summed up pretty well what needed to be done...

CCD by Paul Tuns Saturday, September 10, 2005
To the CCD's Gordon, that reinforces the idea that, at best, Ottawa is ready to react to attacks and not prevent them. While he does not consider the Martin Liberals serious about tackling the issue of terrorism because to do so would require a politically incorrect honesty that would alienate their core of Muslim voters, he would suggest that if Ottawa wanted to prevent terrorism it should stamp out its root cause ­ Islamic fundamentalism and the hatred it engenders. He urged Ottawa to apply hate laws to deal with preachers of hate such as Younus Kathrada, who teaches at the Dar al Madinah Islamic Society's information centre in East Vancouver and who preaches that Jews are "monkeys" and "swine," exhorting followers to kill Jews and infidels.
Gordon said Canada must also stop repatriating into Canada Al Qa'eda families such as the Khadrs. He said that the immigration system had to be fixed, including imposing higher standards on refugee claims from countries known to incubate terrorism.
Dave Harris, former chief of strategic planning for CSIS, agrees. He told a recent disaster-management conference that Canada needs "to get a grip on our disgraceful immigration policies because we don't know what radicals are coming in."
Gordon adds another, perhaps unpopular, measure: Canada must recognize "that we are at war" and "invoke a type of war measures act in which we would accept some temporary suspension of civil rights, as opposed to more permanent suspension of civil rights that comes with terrorist bombings,­ death and the loss of freedom."
For Gordon, until such measures are enacted to prevent terrorists from coming into Canada and operating freely here, it is only a matter of time until they successfully kill a massive number of innocents.
"When we are scraping up bodies in Toronto, we know today that the killers will be Muslim and that they will be incited to commit these atrocities in mosques or Muslim community centres." Gordon said we have the power to clamp down on such incitement, but it remains clear that ­ McLellan's tough new tone notwithstanding,­ the political will is still not there.

 

[reilly]

Despite al Qaeda having mentioned Canada twice as a potential terrorist target and a top al Qaeda official telling Canada last week to get its troops out of Afghanistan, most terrorist groups use Canada to raise money, find recruits and plan attacks in other countries.

"Canadians have been involved in major terrorist operations across the world. For instance, the aforementioned Egyptian-born Canadian Essam Marzouk, who allegedly ran a training camp in Afghanistan, is imprisoned in Egypt for plotting to attack the U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan. Another Canadian, Abdurrahman Jabarah, was part of an operational cell in Saudi Arabia involved in the 2003 attack on a Western housing complex in Riyadh. While Abdurrahman Jabarah was later killed in a gun battle with Saudi security forces, his brother Mohammed Mansour Jabarah [7], a (Catholic) school graduate from Toronto, was allegedly in charge of significant al-Qaeda operations in Southeast Asia. He is accused of plotting the bombing of U.S. and Israeli Embassies in Singapore [8] and may have had foreknowledge of the Bali bombing. Native Kuwaitis, they are believed to have been personally recruited by Kuwaiti al-Qaeda spokesman, Suleyman Abu Ghaith. Another Kuwaiti and Afghan “alumni” is Vancouver resident Ahmad El-Maati. The alleged al-Qaeda operative is said to have planned the hijacking of an airliner in Canada in order to strike an undetermined target in the U.S.

The attacks in London by what appears to be a largely British-Pakistani cell hold many similarities to an earlier plot by Pakistani jihadists based both in Britain and Canada. In March 2004, a joint operation by British and Canadian law enforcement uncovered a transatlantic cell involving a computer engineer, Canadian-born Mohammed Momin Khawaja. [9] The suspect is said to have had a direct and “pivotal” role in plotting, along with nine other suspects, large-scale terrorist attacks in London. According to reliable reports, Khawaja had extensive links to Pakistani Islamist groups and the plot itself may be connected to the Zarqawi network."

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369755

 

[Reccesoldier]

Reilly,

It is a curse of a free society that some in it will use those freedoms to promote hate, fear and mayhem. 

However, I'd rather live in that free society than impliment the kinds of limits that would be necessary to catch the miniscule few who mistreat our freedom for their perverse ends.

 

[CdnArtyWife]

Reilly,

It is a curse of a free society that some in it will use those freedoms to promote hate, fear and mayhem. 

However, I'd rather live in that free society than impliment the kinds of limits that would be necessary to catch the miniscule few who mistreat our freedom for their perverse ends.

+1

 

[rifleman]

Reilly,

It is a curse of a free society that some in it will use those freedoms to promote hate, fear and mayhem. 

However, I'd rather live in that free society than impliment the kinds of limits that would be necessary to catch the miniscule few who mistreat our freedom for their perverse ends.

I'd rather live in a free society that accepts that the cost of freedom will be that a miniscule few will take advantage of that freedom. Anyone that will allow limitations on that freedom without question do not deserve it...IMHO

 

[GO!!!]

I'd rather live in a free society that accepts that the cost of freedom will be that a miniscule few will take advantage of that freedom. Anyone that will allow limitations on that freedom without question do not deserve it...IMHO

What about when we question the "limit" and find it acceptable?

I find it perfectly acceptable that Muslim and Arab men be thoroughly investigated before and after they visit, immigrate or otherwise enter this country, as a method of preserving the freedoms that currently exist here. I don't think sweeping generalisations in any direction really help us.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

    I know this is a schooch to the side of the main topic on this thread, but I do see on this threat the idea of the tradeoff between security and liberty.

It is old but still apt:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
    -Benjamin Franklin

    Terrorists have the ability to inflict horrible damage on us, but they can not even begin to destroy the infrastructure, institutions and the culture in which we live.  Only we have the power to do that.  I honestly believe that given enough time, some nut job somewhere will eventfully be able to do a terrorist act in Canada in the name of the Jihadist movement.  I just hope that in the backlash that will follow, my Country stays my Country.

    How many people over the last 100 or 200 years have been killed by terrorists?  Lets include all wars that were 'wars of liberation' for example Ireland's And America's war of independence from Britain.  I know it is on the upper end of the body count to say a million.  That is a horrible number. 

    Now... over the past 100 hundred years alone, how many people have been killed by Governments that have temporally curtailed liberties for security reasons?  We can see what happened in China, in the former USSR, Germany, South Africa .... actually it isn't hard to come up with a really long list of countries with body counts that START in the millions.  I know in each of those countries there were people who thought "oh that is too much, that could never happen here, we’re just not that kind of people".  It doesn't take deep analysis to see which the greater threat is between a few explosions here and there or a government that has nothing holding it back. 

We often forget here how quickly oppression can overtake a country.  We are not inherently different from other democracy's that have fallen;  except in one respect, most of us were taught from very young age to not ever tolerate oppression in our own government.  How we face our enemies has little to do with them.  It is about who we are.  We know that we will be attacked, we are taking every step we can to prevent it, but we are also doing things that will not help and will simply undermine the culture we inherited.

    During World War 2, London was getting bombed quite heavily in an attempt to crush the fighting will of the English and to hurt the economy, after one bombing run, a store - I believe partially damaged - put out a sign that said "More open than ever".  That single act became almost an icon of will and determination; an icon for standing up and pressing forward with determination, dignity and grace.

    We look back on the bravery of those people with reverence.  How will those to come view us?  Will they say that we faced hardship unflinchingly?  Will they say that we fought evil without becoming evil? Will they thank us for giving them a country that has a stable government with checks and balances? Or will they look at us as the generation that last knew freedom and liberty?  Are we the last generation to not fear our own government? History shows us that trading personal liberties for security doesn't work;  it isn't a slippery slope,  it is free-fall.  If the terrorists truly did want to "destroy freedom" they never could succeed unless we help them.


-
I do apologise for that mini-essay,  but people accepting "limits" and giving more "power" to a smaller pool of people who don't have restrainst/checkls put on them isn't the slow road to hell,  is is the four lane super highway to dictatorship.

 

[warspite]

I do apologise for that mini-essay,  but people accepting "limits" and giving more "power" to a smaller pool of people who don't have restrainst/checkls put on them isn't the slow road to hell,  is is the four lane super highway to dictatorship.

No apology necessary that was a very well done mini-essay.
Your points on infrastructure and how things can change in a minute were very good.

terrorists have the ability to inflict horrible damage on us, but they can not even begin to destroy the infrastructure, institutions and the culture in which we live

But I do wonder, you say that terrorists can't really put a dent in our infrastructure. That may be when 15 radical fools decide to blow up a building but think about this scenario.

--If 1 man let's say... places a small bomb at the base of a hydro line he can cut power to a whole city.(This is fact, it can be done by shooting at the insulators atop the lines. Happened in B.C. once. Shut down McKenzie)

In this scenario a terrorist organization slowly filters people in over a month or so
--Now if lets say 15 people strategically blew up paticular point's along the hydro lines all around B.C. he could effectively cut off power to the whole province.
--At the same time lets say another 100 people around the province sabatoge local generators and power stations and so forth, blowing up a few telephone poles and their power lines etc. in every city preventing any restoring of backup power.
--And another 100 take out bridges around the province

At this point B.C. is without power or transportation. Things start getting pretty bleak.
--Anarchy sets in, looting a pillaging take order of the day, emergency servvices unable to respond.
--During the confusion the above hundred plus lets say 500 more are told to attack other utilities, water etc.
--Now province is in an extreme situation, now power, water or food is moving or available, sickness and desease spread, riots begin....
And so the story goes.....................

Now What if this similtanously were to occur around the rest of Canada.
I've only acounted for 715 people to do this in B.C. so lets boost it to 1000 for arguements sake.
I'm pretty sure their are 1000 radical's who would be willing to try and pull it off if someone ever tried to get them together and organised.
Even assuming that two-thirds were caught the results would be devastating and cripple the province.

Now if this were to happen across Canada the results would really really hurt..... isn't this how they could collapse our infastructure... and with the infastructure... the goverment... and with the goverment.... Canada... and with Canada our culture?

Now I'm not argueing with you about freedoms and such, I love my country and don't want to bow to some dictator. It's only that you said that they could never dent our infastructure and I just don't agree with that.

*please excuse spelling the spell check is on the fritz

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Warspite,  I do have to say you found an exception to my argument really quickly.  Very nice.  :-D  I lived DT toronto during the last blackout.  In the first 4 hours people honestly thought it was a terrorist attack,  our powerlines are such an obvious target and such a sweet opening move for more attacks.  Also,  it wouldn't take them nearly that many people to bring down the grid for weeks - a few explosives on timers in key spots could do it.  A dedicated group of less than 10 people could set everything up inside of 2 months - including traveltime. (assuming they knew where to go and had materials... okay 3 months)

    The Powergrid could be kept down through delayed timers and boobytraps for a good two weeks at the most. I'm not one bit worried.  Like I said I lived in the DT core during the blackout,  I've never seen this city friendlier.  Most people most of the time are good,  and time and time again in emergencies we have shown what we are made of.  We are more than the sum of our roads, transport trucks, and the such. They can blow up buildings, bridges, powerlines and godforbid some of us,  but they can't destroy the fundamental infrastructure of our society.  I am referring to the rich heritage that we inherited of a just society. (Or at least one that knows to try to be just) Checks and balances, rule of law, the layers of departments and laws that actually do restrain those who seem to have power. 

    If the power went out for a Month,  we'd still be Canada.  The police would still arrest trouble makers and Judges would still let them off on technicalities (joking).  There would be economic repercussions for sure,  but a few government projects later (apparently new powerlines need to be made all over the place, and of course new roads and lets us not forget we'll have a boom in construction from all the fires from candles) and the economy is back on track.

 

[GO!!!]

Zell,

So your "defence" of our nation is basically that we are too large for the terrorists to do any meaningful damage?

That's a pretty weak solution to a serious problem.

I know the Bible says to turn the other cheek, but let's be realistic here. What happens when all of the damage is fixed and we are back to our regularly scheduled lives? Wait for the water to be poisoned or a school to be taken over, a la Beslan? After all, we have hundreds of thousands of children, the terrorists can't possibly kill them all!  :

No, the defence of a nation starts abroad, and continues here. We must meet those who threaten us head on, with all of the technology, capabilities and laws that we can muster. Ignoring this problem will not make it go away, making the consequences of planning, aiding or perpetrating terrorism so terrible will though. No terrorists = no terrorism.

 

[vonGarvin]

I know the Bible says to turn the other cheek

Just for clarification, "turn the other cheek" does not imply to simply roll over and let it happen, you know, take it like a beaten dog.  It's all contextual.  Back in the day (around 30 AD), if a socially higher person were to strike a slave or servant, they did it on the back hand.  If they struck a social equal (say landowner to landowner), they would use the fore hand.  So, the message was, after being stuck on the back hand, offer the other cheek, MAKE that "socially higher" person strike you on the forehand, that is, treat you like an equal.  So, the idiom doesn't really apply when dealing with terrorists in the manner of them striking you.

Anyway, back on target....

 

[warrickdll]

...It is old but still apt:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
     -Benjamin Franklin

...History shows us that trading personal liberties for security doesn't work;  it isn't a slippery slope,  it is free-fall.  If the terrorists truly did want to "destroy freedom" they never could succeed unless we help them.
...I do apologise for that mini-essay,  but people accepting "limits" and giving more "power" to a smaller pool of people who don't have restrainst/checkls put on them isn't the slow road to hell,  is is the four lane super highway to dictatorship.
...

Benny F. was ahead of his time. He certainly mastered the sound bite.

Liberty and freedom are not total. We rely on others to follow restrictions on their liberties. A red light would be pretty useless at an intersection if everyone exercised complete freedom. Laws are restrictions on freedom; and there are few advocates of a lawless society.

The earliest civilizations had laws: The Babylonians (Hammurabi), the Ancient Egyptians, and the earlier Sumerians all had laws. Even loose tribal societies have always had laws (usually wrapped as customs), and it is from these arcane beginnings that the system of laws derives from. What I'm getting at is that we have always, and will always, have restrictions on our freedom.


The problem with stating that a restriction on our freedom is a victory for the terrorist is that it locks down the possible responses that the civilized world can take. If we had more freedoms, and were allowed to board aircraft without any screening, would we be more free? Would allowing terrorists to walk onboard with guns and explosives prove how much we were winning?

We see the same self defeating logic from T.J. Layton's crowd when it comes to CF casualties: Each Canadian casket is met with "We must retreat!", "The Taliban are omnipotent!", "The war is unwinnable!", "Where do I sign up to surrender?".

Seeing every casualty as a defeat puts unmanageable stress on the mission and brings about its own failure:

- If every task has the risk of casualties.
- And all casualties are unacceptable.
- Then no tasks can be completed.
- And the mission fails. The enemy wins.

This same logical trap is sometimes applied to our freedoms:

- If every defence against terrorism curtails some freedom.
- And all restrictions on freedom are unacceptable.
- Then no defence can be undertaken.
- And the mission fails. The enemy wins.

We live in a modern civilized society, and so we take our freedoms and our lives seriously (as we should). We should always question why we have restrictions, and why we have casualties, but if everything were sacrosanct then we would be nothing more than a Fixed Target for the enemy.


I share your concerns about those in power, but fundamentalism is our enemy, not our ally. We should allow ourselves some flexibility in order to achieve victory.

Creatures like Al Qaeda have not killed us all only because our people are ensuring that the enemy continues to lack the means - you shouldn't just look at the body count and assume that fundamentalist terrorism is a manageable risk.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Zell,

So your "defence" of our nation is basically that we are too large for the terrorists to do any meaningful damage?

That's a pretty weak solution to a serious problem.

I was trying to point out that  while they can do serious damage (I can't argue that) it pales in comparison to the damage we are starting to inflict on ourselves.  I was saying that we as a society can endure this,  and much worse, as long as we stay true the the values, heritage and traditions we have been bless with.  The taliban can't come here and force us to become torturers,  only we can turn us into that.  Al-qaida can't storm Parliament and pass legislation forcing the government to hold people indefinitely without trial.  Suicide bombers can't force us to  fundamentally redefine who and what we are.  Only we can do that.  I know I'm making broad esoteric comments,  but in reality who and what we are as a country is more than bricks, mortar and power lines.

    I'm not disputing that we need good protection against those who would harm us.  But I am saying that if we are really living in such dangerous times,  doesn't it make sense to cling to that which has traditionally kept us safe?  Rule of law,  good government and checks and balances on power.  Besides,  it is very questionable how effective some of the more unpleasant measures used by our Allies is in fighting terror.  The bulk of the information used to justify the war in Iraq came from torture - we all know how accurate that turned out to be. 

    I respect the desire for safety,  I understand the need for more to be done to keep us safe.  But stripping away our liberties,  removing checks/balances on power, paving over the rule of law and the new willingness to use information received from torture provides very little in the way of actual security and poses a much bigger threat than anything any terrorist could do.

 

[rifleman]

What about when we question the "limit" and find it acceptable?

I find it perfectly acceptable that Muslim and Arab men be thoroughly investigated before and after they visit, immigrate or otherwise enter this country, as a method of preserving the freedoms that currently exist here. I don't think sweeping generalisations in any direction really help us.

You must have forgot your smiley face cause you can't be serious.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I was trying to point out that  while they can do serious damage (I can't argue that) it pales in comparison to the damage we are starting to inflict on ourselves.  I was saying that we as a society can endure this,  and much worse, as long as we stay true the the values, heritage and traditions we have been bless with.  The taliban can't come here and force us to become torturers,  only we can turn us into that.  Al-qaida can't storm Parliament and pass legislation forcing the government to hold people indefinitely without trial.  Suicide bombers can't force us to  fundamentally redefine who and what we are.  Only we can do that.   I know I'm making broad esoteric comments,  but in reality who and what we are as a country is more than bricks, mortar and power lines.

     I'm not disputing that we need good protection against those who would harm us.  But I am saying that if we are really living in such dangerous times,  doesn't it make sense to cling to that which has traditionally kept us safe?  Rule of law,  good government and checks and balances on power.  Besides,  it is very questionable how effective some of the more unpleasant measures used by our Allies is in fighting terror.  The bulk of the information used to justify the war in Iraq came from torture - we all know how accurate that turned out to be. 

     I respect the desire for safety,  I understand the need for more to be done to keep us safe.  But stripping away our liberties,  removing checks/balances on power, paving over the rule of law and the new willingness to use information received from torture provides very little in the way of actual security and poses a much bigger threat than anything any terrorist could do.

Zell,

There was an analysis paper released about 2-weeks ago that I'll have to see if I can find that broke down the domino effect of waterboarding and let's just say your statement is 100% false.  "Torture"/"Psychological Stress Techniques of Interrogation" in combination with Echelon-type programs of Communication Interception and Signals Interception (another ACLU favourite) have been the linchpins to our success of being able to catch these bastards as individuals, and not have to take more punitive action against larger muslim populations.

As a final note, airport security can use see-thru X-ray systems on myself, my wife, my children every damned time I choose to get on a plane, if it makes us collectively safer.  I find it insulting and blatantly selfish that other people are unwilling to make such sacrifices and because of that I am less safe.


Matthew. 

 

[GO!!!]

You must have forgot your smiley face cause you can't be serious.

Of course I'm serious.

There is a single demographic group who has been responsible for attacks in New York (x2), London, Madrid, Bali, throughout the secular Arab world and attempted attacks here in Canada, which we were fortunate enough to foil with the help of an informant.

Are you seriously implying that the next terrorist attacks here in Canada are likely to come from someone else? Who?

 

[George Wallace]

To add to GO!!!'s comments, and counter the Civil Libertarians, I would say that we need more restrictions to maintain a Safe and Free Society here in Canada. 

You have the Freedom to come to Canada and live by our Rules and Laws, or you have the Freedom to live somewhere else in the World that meets your personal beliefs.  If you don't want to follow the Rules and Laws, then you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the Law.  Rather simple really.

Deja vu......We have been here before.

 

[rifleman]

Well I guess it goes both ways....Those who need more restrictions to feel safe can always go somewhere else

 

[George Wallace]

Well I guess it goes both ways....Those who need more restrictions to feel safe can always go somewhere else

So your proposal is that Canadians leave Canada, because Immigrants don't want to abide by the Rules and Laws that Canadians have developed since pre-Confederation?  Let's give up and leave it to those who want to bring the environments that they are fleeing from to our country and convert us?  Absolutely Brilliant!  But you are correct.....that is what Freedom is all about.

 

[GO!!!]

Well I guess it goes both ways....Those who need more restrictions to feel safe can always go somewhere else

Apparently, freedom is also about being sickeningly passive and meek, and never fighting to preserve something worthwhile - like our nation and what it stands for.

You leave for your anarchistic utopia, where everyone is free to do as they wish. My country is worth saving with restrictions on demonstrably adversarial groups.