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

[jmackenzie_15]

"... they would be working for the government and advising DND on the most efficient means of fighting terrorism."

- An even scarier scenario than teaching university.   Leave'm where they are.   Better there than tenured at CSIS.

Tom

Well I would assume that the guys actually doing the job are the real experts, no?

Anyhoo.....    :

Anyone have anything relevant to add, or has this one run its course?

Im surprised this hasnt been locked long ago, actually.

 

[George Wallace]

Well ROB does come in and post a long tirade of cut and pastes and then flees off to other locals before he is challenged by rebuttals from those on these forums.  He has provided no proof or hard evidence to back up his claims.  He refuses to profide any links to Open Source materials that may back up his claims.  He discounts all our evidence as irrelevant and not worth his attention.  He really has no credibility with any of the other posters, so unless he can provide concrete challenges to those put to him, we must assume that he has lost.

 

[Infanteer]

My rebuttal is that what you consider to be evidence shouldn't be considered evidence at all. It's not enough to justify what you suggest it justifies.

Were not talking about criminal acts moron, we're talking about attacks by a global insurgency (who's motives, tactics and goals I've layed out)

http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/search/LessonsLearned/middleeast/Al-Qaeda%20as%20Insurgency%20.pdf

The "law enforcement mentality" is the only appropriate mentality a western democratic nation can use. What Michael Schuer proposes not only borders on war crimes, it is also unjustifiable with by a county that is supposed to respect law and order.

Prove it.

What do I need to substantiate? The fact that what you consider to be evidence isn't evidence in the eyes of the Canadian judicial system? You agree with this, but you seem to think that for terrorism, Canada's standard of evidence can be thrown down a toilet and replaced with something much lower, which you haven't defined.

Obviously you can't read, because I've defined it in plain fucking English multiple times.

You need to force yourself to believe something? If you try to ban me using a rule that was probably written to keep people from making libelous unsubstantiated comments, you'd be attacking the fact that I disagree with you.

No, the rule is written to prevent people from making claims about something that they know nothing about.  I'm not attacking the fact that you disagree with me, plenty of people disagree with me and are happy to provide counter-arguements for the sake of debate.  You obviously don't fit into this catagory, so now I am sure you are a troll.

You're an asshat and you've managed to tapdance around every direct question I've asked you.  I'm done wasting my time with you, as you don't even have the common courtesy to respond to criticism of your arguements.  As far as I'm concerned (and, it seems, many others) you have no credibility here.  Piss off.

 

[Kat Stevens]

It actually took 7 pages to get to the point where someone finally said it?  The kinder, gentler army.ca.... ;D

 

[R0B]

:rofl:

Yes, some guy in a tweed jacket is a terrorism "expert", while a room-full of soldiers are all just blowing hot air

Let me clue you in pal.  Proffesors generaly end up teaching because they're not much good for anything else.  That's why I've run circles around every damn computer teacher I've ever had:  those with true skills, qualifications, and talent generaly end up working somwhere where they can make a difference, and make a whole whackload of money.  The leftovers, the ones who can't find useful employment, generaly end up teaching.

Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach.

That's probably true for computer proffesors (sic.) who end up "teaching" because they can't find a real job. University professors, however, at least at real universities, work as professors because they've decided to dedicate their lives to academia. Not to mention the fact that university professors get paid more and work less than government employees.

You haven't said anything concrete or factual....just that you believe in the preachings of some acedemics who have never left their Ivory Towers... give us proof.

It's impossible to prove that terrorists will or will not attack Canada.

Holy crap you guys are still humoring this guy?

I think youre all overlooking the fact that he wrote the pam on internationall terrorism, and is one of canada's most respected SMEs.

You're right rob. Every single person on this site (none of them have agreed with you yet) are all wrong, but you, in all your benevolent divine wisdom, are absolutely 100% correct.

Also, for a change, I agree with 48th and he's absolutely right.... if those guys were "experts" they wouldnt be sitting around teaching snot nosed know it alls like yourself.... they would be working for the government and advising DND on the most efficient means of fighting terrorism.

Why do you think that is ? Maybe theyre.... less than experts? much like yourself? 

No one has agreed with me in this topic, but I've received kind PMs.

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of professors would like to abandon the $100k+ they make for working 10 hours a week to work for the government, where they won't be able to choose what to research and what to write about.

I guess that's it, university professors aren't experts, they're a bunch of idiots who couldn't get a job working for the government or some company, so instead they've been relegated to teaching at an institution of higher learning.

Were not talking about criminal acts moron, we're talking about attacks by a global insurgency (who's motives, tactics and goals I've layed out)

So you agree that what you consider to be "evidence" isn't anywhere near what the Canada would need for a criminal conspiracy conviction?
It doesn't matter who or what is behind these acts, the fact is that what you have to suggest the threat of an attack against Canada isn't evidence by Canada's standards.

Prove it.

Scheuer thinks America should be" bloody-minded and kill in large numbers" and fight without principle, doing whatever is needed to win (Imperial Hubris, 242.) That sort of behavior is sure to attract allegations of war crimes, and quite likely, eventual convictions. It doesn't matter whether or not you think we should just go around murdering people if we think they're probably terrorists, or torturing people to gain intelligence. Who knows, that may end up saving thousands of people, but unless you know that for sure, you've committed a crime (according to Canada) to which you have no defense. Given that support for President Bush fell when the facts about torture at Abu Ghraib came to the public's view, and that support for War in Vietnam fell more and more as evidence of atrocities was shown by the media, you could reasonably assume that public opinion does not favor torture or what the reasonable person would assume to be illegal actions in war. Johnson did not seek re-election because he did not want to be disgraced by a loss. And, the reason he knew he'd lose was the Vietnam War. Indeed, Nixon won by a landslide, largely because he promised "peace with honor" to the American people. Michael Schuer's method may guarantee victory, it's indeterminable, but it would almost certainly guarantee the end of the political career of anyone who promoted it.

Obviously you can't read, because I've defined it in plain ******* English multiple times.

Why not state it again, right now? No, you'd rather accuse me of being unable to read to escape the situation.

No, the rule is written to prevent people from making claims about something that they know nothing about.  I'm not attacking the fact that you disagree with me, plenty of people disagree with me and are happy to provide counter-arguements for the sake of debate.  You obviously don't fit into this catagory, so now I am sure you are a troll.

You're an asshat and you've managed to tapdance around every direct question I've asked you.  I'm done wasting my time with you, as you don't even have the common courtesy to respond to criticism of your arguements.  As far as I'm concerned (and, it seems, many others) you have no credibility here.  Piss off.

You can't automatically assume that just because you cna't place me into one category, I automatically fit into another.
"Moron?" "Asshat?" "Piss off?" Do you kiss your husband with that mouth? Could you please refrain from ad hominem attacks? I'd appreciate it.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Rob, everyone in this thread has disagreed with everything you say, and a moderator basically just told you to beat it. Yet you come back,
spending alot of time on rebuttals that are only going to fall on deaf ears.

What the hell are you trying to prove? seriously, give up.

I have nothing left to say about anything in this thread, other than that I think its going absolutely nowhere.

 

[armyvern]

You've got serious problems if you're just going to assume people here know what they're talking about because are or were in the military and may possibly be privy to secret information. Then again, it seems to be that you just believe anything that already agrees with your views.

ROB,
Now pulling brick #1 form the base of your ivory tower. I have no serious problem for I am not the one assuming anything. Look into the mirror...see yourself? I don't assume people here know anything as I KNOW some of them KNOW. This is not an assumtion on my part. I do not believe just anything that already agrees with my views either, and this is another assumption on your part. Want proof of this?? Check other threads. But this topic my young one, is one which many of us happen to have a little more (and in many cases - alot more) experience than yourself or your tweed-clad prof in. Do not assume that we just toe the line being military, public servants, RCMP officers etc. Because in doing that you are just again providing us with proof of how wrong and out to lunch you are.

 

[George Wallace]

We'll try a little experiment:

ROB says "Terrorists will not attack Canada."

I say "ROB will not post here."

His convoluted statement "You've got serious problems if you're just going to assume people here know what they're talking about because are or were in the military and may possibly be privy to secret information. Then again, it seems to be that you just believe anything that already agrees with your views." contradicts logic.  He says that people doing the job, some of whom may have access to Secret information, know nothing about the matter of which we speak.  He, who goes to university, hears from Profs who publish in Journals, which no one can find on Open Source (I don't know why?), knows more.  He has yet to provide on credible link to support his claims.  His "I heard from a friend (Prof) stance" is unacceptable as hearsay in any credible argument, without corroborating evidence.

ROB will not attackpost here.

 

[Infanteer]

So you agree that what you consider to be "evidence" isn't anywhere near what the Canada would need for a criminal conspiracy conviction?
It doesn't matter who or what is behind these acts, the fact is that what you have to suggest the threat of an attack against Canada isn't evidence by Canada's standards.

We are not looking to indict these people, we are looking for reasonable evidence to determine if they pose a real threat to Canada.   If we have to indict them, then it is too late as there are dead bodies somewhere.   If we manage to catch them before, then they'll have a comfy cell in Gitmo.    I've posted a reasonable summation of why these groups and organizations provide a credible threat to Canada (again, a general threat, not a specific one) and you've yet to counter it.   Put up or shut up and go away.

Scheuer thinks....

I didn't ask what Sheuer thinks, but thanks for another logical fallacy in the long list you've chalked up here.   I asked you to prove how approaching Al Qaeda and the Islamic Insurgency as a military threat as opposed to a law enforcement one is a threat to our principles.  

Why not state it again, right now? No, you'd rather accuse me of being unable to read to escape the situation.

Well, you certainly put on that appearence by consistently dodging the questions.   But don't worry, you are doing a good job of proving that you have no leg to stand on.

It's impossible to prove that terrorists will or will not attack Canada.

Nice subtle change.   Doesn't really mesh with your previous statements of:

Terrorists won't attack Canada.

and:

What's my point? It's that Canada isn't going to get attacked by terrorists.

So no it seems we can stick "hypocrite" in your repetoire now.   Of course nobody has a crystal ball, but you've yet to prove that Al Qaeda and its affilates don't pose a general threat to Canada (as they have to every other Western nation).

 

[larry Strong]

That's probably true for computer proffesors (sic.) who end up "teaching" because they can't find a real job. University professors, however, at least at real universities, work as professors because they've decided to dedicate their lives to academia. Not to mention the fact that university professors get paid more and work less than government employees.

Exactly the point, they have spent their whole lives inside the "Ivory Tower's" and don't know sh8t about the real world.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Oh boy, more university bashing from the enlightened masses. What a surprise.

As for the "those that can't do, teach" maxim - tell that to Henry Kissinger... you know, the guy that helped shape American Cold War foreign policy after teaching at Harvard. Or Condolezza Rice. Or the thousands of other individuals who have played influential roles in government after teaching at universities.

Where do people think the theories and concepts which govern government policy, foreign and domestic, come from? The Theory Fairy? Here's a hint: it starts with an A, ends with an A, and has "cademi" in the middle.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I'd just like to interject here by pointing out that the most highly regarded (even "best")  military historians have never served a day in their lives.  Dancocks certainly at the head of the list, but many others as well.  I hesitate to mention Ambrose - some would say he wasn't a good historian but he was certainly highly regarded.  There's a long list of others.

I love how the soldiers say that professors know shit about the real world, when most of the soldiers spouting off don't know shit about academia.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

When it should come from " the working class"........

..and isn't this you?
Quote,
The Kissinger-esque attitude of national interest justifying the most far-flung interventionist policies is what has put the world in the state it's in.

Maybe he should have stayed teaching?

Michael beat me, this is in response to GA post above...

 

[George Wallace]

Ape

Nice rant  : just a little off topic.

Michael

Again off topic, but then we have others like Desmond Morton, Bernd Horn, Michel Wyczynski, Sean Maloney, Jack Granatstien, Michael McNorgan, Strome Galloway, Brian Nolan, Lew MacKenzie......... :

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Except that the subject in question is terrorism, and that happens to be the focal point of our profession at the current time, and I would be inclined to the think that the guys dealing with these individuals would have a more respected and enlightened opinion on the subject, than people in a schoolhouse reading books about them and using other peoples opinions as their own.

Also, "terrorists will never attack canada" is the stupidest thing I think I may have ever heard. The immunity that people think we have is absolutely ridiculous. They had no problem blowing up a couple of our guys overseas, or directly calling us out as a major target in videos procuded by and starring Al Qaedas leading man.

They had even less to gain from attacking spain than they would Canada... Spain isnt adjacent to the US, a part of NAFTA, a major economic partner, a country sharing countless cultural similarities....

And then theres those two poor people kidnapped in Iraq... Yes Rob, youre absolutely right. Since we are Canadian, and the extremists have nothing to gain from attacking us, they wont.

Maybe you should write some letters to your local newspapers and such, outlining how the real world works and that here in canada, we are immune to attack, so everybody can stop worrying about it. Im sure theyd all be very releived.

 

[Infanteer]

Dancocks certainly at the head of the list

Who?

I would have said Keegan.

 

[R0B]

We'll try a little experiment:

ROB says "Terrorists will not attack Canada."

I say "ROB will not post here."

His convoluted statement "You've got serious problems if you're just going to assume people here know what they're talking about because are or were in the military and may possibly be privy to secret information. Then again, it seems to be that you just believe anything that already agrees with your views." contradicts logic.  He says that people doing the job, some of whom may have access to Secret information, know nothing about the matter of which we speak.  He, who goes to university, hears from Profs who publish in Journals, which no one can find on Open Source (I don't know why?), knows more.  He has yet to provide on credible link to support his claims.  His "I heard from a friend (Prof) stance" is unacceptable as hearsay in any credible argument, without corroborating evidence.

ROB will not attackpost here.

Well, does anyone here (not in this forum, but in this particular topic) work for CSIS or military intelligence in a role regarding terrorism?
www.jstor.com hosts a number of online journals. They're available, but they're expensive.

We are not looking to indict these people, we are looking for reasonable evidence to determine if they pose a real threat to Canada.  If we have to indict them, then it is too late as there are dead bodies somewhere.  If we manage to catch them before, then they'll have a comfy cell in Gitmo.  I've posted a reasonable summation of why these groups and organizations provide a credible threat to Canada (again, a general threat, not a specific one) and you've yet to counter it.  Put up or shut up and go away.

Investigate them and arrested them when criminal conspiracy can be proven. In keeping with the judicial philosophy of the Canadian justice system, it would be impossible to prove that a threat does not exist. It is only possible to say that a threat does not exist in light of insufficient evidence to suggest that a threat does exist. I've already noted that what you consider to be evidence does not meet the standards of the Canadian justice system. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe there is a threat, because if we are to judge by our own opinions, we would only end up having to agree that we are both not-incorrect. For this reason I would rather chose Canada's standard.

I didn't ask what Sheuer thinks, but thanks for another logical fallacy in the long list you've chalked up here.  I asked you to prove how approaching Al Qaeda and the Islamic Insurgency as a military threat as opposed to a law enforcement one is a threat to our principles. 

It's a threat to our principals because nations like Canada believe that Charter rights should extend to all people. Terrorists can certainly be dealt with martially, but it is not possibly to justify war against a group of people who might be terrorists simply because they might be terrorists. For military action to be justified, the terrorists must be considered criminals, since they are not members of a foreign military and therefore cannot be considered enemy combatants.

Well, you certainly put on that appearence by consistently dodging the questions.  But don't worry, you are doing a good job of proving that you have no leg to stand on.

If you have nothing to list, don't worry about it.

Also, "terrorists will never attack canada" is the stupidest thing I think I may have ever heard. The immunity that people think we have is absolutely ridiculous. They had no problem blowing up a couple of our guys overseas, or directly calling us out as a major target in videos procuded by and starring Al Qaedas leading man.

I've already mentioned that I cannot possibly know whether or not terrorists will attack Canada, and I've mentioned that I would not use such definite terms in a professional context. It should be pretty clear to any reasonable individual that in saying "terrorists won't attack Canada" I'm merely trying to convey my opinion that I very highly doubt that terrorists will attack Canada with the added gravitas that certain language affords. When you say "I'll be home at 6," you know you mean "I'll probably be home at 6," or," I plan to be home at 6" since you cannot possibly guarantee at what time you'll arrive home due to factors outside of your control.

They had even less to gain from attacking spain than they would Canada... Spain isnt adjacent to the US, a part of NAFTA, a major economic partner, a country sharing countless cultural similarities....

Except for the fact that they were successful in replacing Spain's somewhat conservative government with a socialist government whose first order of business was to withdraw its troops from Iraq.

And then theres those two poor people kidnapped in Iraq... Yes Rob, youre absolutely right. Since we are Canadian, and the extremists have nothing to gain from attacking us, they wont.

It's funny you should bring this story up since you obviously know very little about it. For one, it isn't yet known who kidnapped these workers. There is some speculation that they have been kidnapped by thieves looking for ransom, while others believe terrorists may be behind this crime. However, who the kidnappers are remains to be known. Regardless of that, you should take into account that the people who were kidnapped were humanitarian aid workers. I think you'll agree that an aid worker isn't a choice hostage, compared to say, an American soldier or the employee of some American corporation. From what I've seen so far, I take it some opportunistic kidnappers stumbled across a group of unescorted aid workers and decided to abduct them. We'll find out sooner or later what happened. Regardless, ask yourself for a minute, "did the abductors set out to kidnap Canadians or did it just play out that way?"

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Ape

Nice rant  : just a little off topic.

Michael

Again off topic, but then we have others like Desmond Morton, Bernd Horn, Michel Wyczynski, Sean Maloney, Jack Granatstien, Michael McNorgan, Strome Galloway, Brian Nolan, Lew MacKenzie......... :

Jack Granatstein was a subaltern for what - 3 years?  Roll your eyes all you want.  Lew Mackenzie will never have the stature as a military historian as David Bercuson.  As a consultant, he's in the same camp as our favourite ex-corporal.  

So you named some historians (I don't agree that Mackenzie is one, by the way) that happened to be soldiers.  How does that disprove the point that you don't have to be a soldier to be a good military historian?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
Well, does anyone here (not in this forum, but in this particular topic) work for CSIS or military intelligence in a role regarding terrorism?

Just off the top of my head, I know of 2 in this thread alone......but do you actually think they will answer this question? :
Once again your lack of worldly experience is showing......several have tried to point this out but you just think that your little sandbox is the boundaries of life's intellect.
I wish I knew half as much as some on this thread......

 

[Infanteer]

blahblahblah

Since all you've done is continue to supply the same answer off your index card from last week's lecture....