Do Canadians feel safer?

[bush_cheney2004]

....The "totalitarian" country afforded its guests more freedom than the "land of the free" does.

....the locals aren't impressed, and risk death floating to the "land of the free".

[Moonlight Graham]

The question is do you feel safer post/911 and the answer is yes. It's obvious to me that one would feel less safe today than on 9/10 though.

The question shouldn't be "do you feel safer?". Of course we don't feel safer post-9/11. The question should be: are we much safer having spend the extra 92 billion for security post-9/11? Or better yet, has the 92 billion been worth it in terms of security?

I haven't looked at all the expenditures, but I feel we've done a decent job in terms of domestic security since 9/11.

[Bonam]

We've certainly increased security on commercial aircraft. But how much does that really protect us from terrorist attacks? The changes are very reactionary in nature. A major terrorist attack was carried out on aircraft, therefore we tightened security on aircraft. Ok, fine, but aircraft aren't the only things that can be used for a terrorist attack.

A comparable loss of life could be achieved by terrorists targeting a cruise ship (they carry up to 5000+ people), for example. And yet, security to get aboard a cruise ship is minimal to the point of being almost non-existent. Our schools and colleges are death traps for students if a terrorist (or any kind of killer) decides to go on a shooting rampage or plant a bomb. No security whatsoever is enforced in schools and colleges. Transit hubs/interchanges/stations for subways/light rails/express buses can hold thousands or even tens of thousands of people at peak hours and present a ripe target (that has indeed been attacked in other nations), and yet security there is also essentially non-existent. Also, industrial facilities, power stations, and even R&D facilities handling dangerous/exotic materials often have low security compared to airports and could be targets of terrorist attacks which cause release of hazardous material causing mass death or illness.

It seems clear to me that the next terrorist attack that causes mass loss of life will very likely not revolve around the hijacking of an airplane. We've taken many steps to ensure that does not happen, but ignored many other potential avenues of terrorist attack.

[Battletoads]

I haven't felt unsafe since the winding down of the cold war. Honestly, terrorist attacks are small potatoes compared to real threats.

[William Ashley]

I mean, nail clippers! Explain those to me, will you?

See in Mexico customs and security officials are very sound in their decisions. I had some hair trimmers that i forgot was on my carryon, and so use to flying in the US and Canada I had to give them to the Mexican officials for fear of breaking flying rules while in mexico and insist they keep them because they didn't want to take them. I probably should have kept them. Of course they wouldn't let me take dull coral old and dead and eroded smooth as sandstone (that i had just flown with) with me in carry on after that (taped up and wrapped ad hoc)... but that was the airline not the customs people. So point of advice knives are ok to fly with in Mexico - coral is not. That is actually just a really bad joke, I don't mean that. Just the coral knife thing though.

Edited September 8, 2011 by William Ashley

[dre]

I haven't felt unsafe since the winding down of the cold war. Honestly, terrorist attacks are small potatoes compared to real threats.

True but like I said... the danger isnt the terrorist attacks themselves so much as what a fear-dumb population will encourage/allow its government to do.

[capricorn]

There are no dictionary results for Islamicism.

Here's an entry from wiki.

Islamicism can refer to:

Islamic fundamentalism (modern usage)

Islamic studies (pre-1980 usage)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamicism

[Black Dog]

How so ? The question is do you feel safer post/911 and the answer is yes. It's obvious to me that one would feel less safe today than on 9/10 though.

It's not at all obvious to me. I don't feel much different at all: terrorism wasn't on my radar before and it's not now. Then, as now, I'm far more likely to get hit by lightning on the golf course than be a victim of a terror attack.

And I don't even golf.

[fellowtraveller]

What can anyone possibly have concealed within their shoes that would cause an aircraft to veer of course and collide with a tall structure?

WWWTT

I guess you don't get out much.

At many airports, you are required to remove your shoes as a security measure.

Please try to keep up.

[capricorn]

The question should be: are we much safer having spend the extra 92 billion for security post-9/11? Or better yet, has the 92 billion been worth it in terms of security?

I heard that the $92B includes other costs related to national security.

Calculating what it cost Canadian taxpayers to respond to the Sept. 11 terror attacks has proven to be a difficult task for the Rideau Institute.

The left-wing think tank has released a report that concludes $92 billion in new military, public safety, foreign affairs, and other spending since 2001 is linked to creating a post-9-11 national security establishment.

Still, report author and economist David Macdonald admits it's not easy to draw a clear line between the spending and al-Qaida terrorism that shook the world.

"I suppose we could argue about whether (the spending) would have happened anyway," Macdonald said.

He insisted at least part of the justification for the spending was due to "the 9-11 agenda."

Candice Hoeppner, parliamentary secretary to the public safety minister, agreed some increased spending was tied to dealing with Afghanistan and the U.S. Homeland Security, but not all of it.

"It also has to do with trade," said Hoeppner. "It has to do with the movements of goods and services and individuals."

The Rideau Institute also says the $92 billion figure shrinks to $69 billion once it takes inflation into account.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2011/09/07/18652941.html

How much is too much is a fair question but can anyone answer that?

[capricorn]

Seriously, it takes me all of 60 seconds to go through airport security. It isn't a big deal. Just pack right, show them your ticket on your phone, and you're in.

I would expect airport security procedures are different for domestic and international flights. I haven't flown domestically for years but I found the process with travel abroad to be tolerable.

[capricorn]

True but like I said... the danger isnt the terrorist attacks themselves so much as what a fear-dumb population will encourage/allow its government to do.

The NDP thinks the problem are rogue planes.

That kind of faith in each other was shaken on September 11, 2001 — pierced by those four rogue aircraft that caused such suffering.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/08/we-have-been-working-to-undo-these-associations-for-a-decade/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Smallc]

I would expect airport security procedures are different for domestic and international flights. I haven't flown domestically for years but I found the process with travel abroad to be tolerable.

I don't know if the actual security is any different when going either international or domestic (though there are probably some differences when going to the US, given that they're very particular about air security). I've always found domestic travel to be simple. I've need had a problem with airport security, and I've gone through it 8 times in the last 3 years.

[Saipan]

All they have to do is make sure Moslem don't get on regular airliners. They have their Arab Airlines.

They can also use camel express.

Then we can go again to the airport on last minute instead three (3) hours earlier as before!

AND arm pilots once again.

[Guest American Woman]

We've certainly increased security on commercial aircraft. But how much does that really protect us from terrorist attacks? The changes are very reactionary in nature. A major terrorist attack was carried out on aircraft, therefore we tightened security on aircraft. Ok, fine, but aircraft aren't the only things that can be used for a terrorist attack.

A comparable loss of life could be achieved by terrorists targeting a cruise ship (they carry up to 5000+ people), for example.

The only way they could kill as many people on a cruise ship is to have a bomb in their suitcase - and suitcases are screened. The people boarding go through security also, as does anything and everything they carry on with them.

And yet, security to get aboard a cruise ship is minimal to the point of being almost non-existent.

You consider screening luggage and passengers and everything they carry on to be "minimal?" I didn't have any higher security measures getting on the plane to take me to my latest cruise than I did getting on the ship.

Our schools and colleges are death traps for students if a terrorist (or any kind of killer) decides to go on a shooting rampage or plant a bomb. No security whatsoever is enforced in schools and colleges.

I think you're speaking in pretty broad terms, but I agree that there should be tighter security in schools. I've never understood how kids could get guns into schools - seems to me there should be metal detectors.

Transit hubs/interchanges/stations for subways/light rails/express buses can hold thousands or even tens of thousands of people at peak hours and present a ripe target (that has indeed been attacked in other nations), and yet security there is also essentially non-existent.

What do you propose be done? And if this is a more difficult area to control, does that mean we should lessen security in areas we do have more control over in response? I'm just not sure what point is being made.

Also, industrial facilities, power stations, and even R&D facilities handling dangerous/exotic materials often have low security compared to airports and could be targets of terrorist attacks which cause release of hazardous material causing mass death or illness.

I would need some proof of that statement. Do you have a source/information to back that up?

It seems clear to me that the next terrorist attack that causes mass loss of life will very likely not revolve around the hijacking of an airplane.

That's been recognized.

We've taken many steps to ensure that does not happen, but ignored many other potential avenues of terrorist attack.

I'm not sure they've been "ignored;" it's likely more a matter of the same level of security not being possible in every situation .................

[dre]

The only way they could kill as many people on a cruise ship is to have a bomb in their suitcase - and suitcases are screened. The people boarding go through security also, as does anything and everything they carry on with them.

No thats the only way. I live out on the west coast, and theres a steady parade of big cruise ships going past here on their way to Alaska and places like that all summer. I've buzzed them really close in my boat before... closer than 50 feet. Theres no security at all.

You could load midium sized pleasure boat with diesel and fertilizer and do the same thing that was done to the SS Cole, VERY VERY EASILY. You could probably break the ship in half and sink it resulting in fairly high casualties.

The biggest worry though is our own stupidity. The terrorist know that if they can plant the seeds of fear in one area, and will jerk at the knees and spend billions of dollars. This is their whole plan... they know they never hope to "win", so they hope to trick us into beating ourselves. All that had to be done to prevent another 911 is put 1000 bux worth of cockpit doors on the planes, and implement protocols to keep them closed. Instead we went on a 10 year security obsession, and spend zillions.

We are pretty much at their mercy now. The terrorists could leak a fake memo about attacking cruise ships, or anything else, and we borrow billions of dollars that we dont have and spend it on trying to assuage our fears.

You consider screening luggage and passengers and everything they carry on to be "minimal?" I didn't have any higher security measures getting on the plane to take me to my latest cruise than I did getting on the ship.

Minimal and almost useless. It would take a large volume of explosives to damage a cruiseship enough to cause massive casualties. Theres absolutely no sense in trying to sneak that stuff onto a cruise when you can simply load it into a crewboat or a fishing boat and pull along aside to detonate.

[bloodyminded]

The biggest worry though is our own stupidity. The terrorist know that if they can plant the seeds of fear in one area, and will jerk at the knees and spend billions of dollars. This is their whole plan...

Yeah. In fact, inciting us into wars in the ME was almost certainly part of the plan.

However, thanks to several factors, including the apparent nature of the Arab uprisings and and the growing disaffection among Muslims for violent jihadis, it's quite possible that the terrorists severely misconceived how it would play out.

They've no doubt played a part in the financial mess we've made. But they were going after something bigger. A replacement of the Arab dictators that Western leaders love with a different kind of Arab dictator, that Muslim theocrats could love. Overall, I don't think it's going to happen.

Edited September 8, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

No thats the only way. I live out on the west coast, and theres a steady parade of big cruise ships going past here on their way to Alaska and places like that all summer. I've buzzed them really close in my boat before... closer than 50 feet. Theres no security at all.

That has nothing to do with security on the ship, which I believe is what was being referenced. It has nothing to do with the cruise ship's security, period, as that would involve marine law and the legality of small ships being able to buzz big ships.

You could load midium sized pleasure boat with diesel and fertilizer and do the same thing that was done to the SS Cole, VERY VERY EASILY. You could probably break the ship in half and sink it resulting in fairly high casualties.

The USS Cole didn't result in casualties in the thousands, which was the comment/idea I was responding to. And I doubt the ship would sink instantaneously - survivors of the blast could make it to lifeboats. It's a different situation from taking out a plane. But again, you are speaking of a different situation than 'security on a cruise ship.'

The biggest worry though is our own stupidity. The terrorist know that if they can plant the seeds of fear in one area, and will jerk at the knees and spend billions of dollars. This is their whole plan... they know they never hope to "win", so they hope to trick us into beating ourselves. All that had to be done to prevent another 911 is put 1000 bux worth of cockpit doors on the planes, and implement protocols to keep them closed. Instead we went on a 10 year security obsession, and spend zillions.

And my life has gone on ...... pretty much without fear - or obsession. No "stupidity" ruining the quality of my life. I have no problem with security on a plane, and am glad it's been heightened. But then, I don't claim to know what "terrorists know." I don't claim to know "their whole plan." As such, I find it interesting that you apparently do.

We are pretty much at their mercy now. The terrorists could leak a fake memo about attacking cruise ships, or anything else, and we borrow billions of dollars that we dont have and spend it on trying to assuage our fears.

Okay. If you say so ..........

Minimal and almost useless. It would take a large volume of explosives to damage a cruiseship enough to cause massive casualties. Theres absolutely no sense in trying to sneak that stuff onto a cruise

You're backing up my claim.

....when you can simply load it into a crewboat or a fishing boat and pull along aside to detonate.

Which again, is a different issue from the one I was referring to ...........

[Michael Hardner]

They've no doubt played a part in the financial mess we've made. But they were going after something bigger. A replacement of the Arab dictators that Western leaders love with a different kind of Arab dictator, that Muslim theocrats could love. Overall, I don't think it's going to happen.

Gwyne Dyer wrote a piece about this agreeing with your point here. They saw the economic mess that theocratic dictators cause, and the wars and most of them (according to him) don't want that to happen.

His thought was that the terrorists were hoping to set up more theocracies like Afghanistan, but it just didn't work out for them.

[bloodyminded]

Gwyne Dyer wrote a piece about this agreeing with your point here. They saw the economic mess that theocratic dictators cause, and the wars and most of them (according to him) don't want that to happen.

His thought was that the terrorists were hoping to set up more theocracies like Afghanistan, but it just didn't work out for them.

And here's hoping.

It shouldn't be too surprising that Muslims want lives of stability and peace.

Edited September 8, 2011 by bloodyminded

[WWWTT]

Any Canadians who were there...or on the plane.

Since these attacks did not occur in Canada,and the targets did not belong to Canada it would be safe to say that Canada(ians) were not the intended target.Unless you have hard evidence then your opinion is only that-your opinion!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I guess you don't get out much.

At many airports, you are required to remove your shoes as a security measure.

Please try to keep up.

Man that freekin comment you made cracked me up so much I can barely write this response!

I had asked what can someone possibly carry in their shoes that can cause a plane to collide into a tall structure and you tell me "I don't get out much"

Thats your freekin answer?

Man thats freekin hallarious!

What do you do for a living buddy?

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Since these attacks did not occur in Canada,and the targets did not belong to Canada it would be safe to say that Canada(ians) were not the intended target.Unless you have hard evidence then your opinion is only that-your opinion!

WWWTT

So what about the Air India bombing - were no Canadians targeted then? Or do you think Canadians singly became immune to being targeted since then? And what about the attack in Bali - who was - or wasn't targeted in that attack?

Canada has been singled out by terrorist groups as a target. I don't know what sense of security or righteousness or whatever you may be feeling you would get out of not believing Canadians were targeted at the WTC, but the fact is, all of the passengers on the planes, all of the people in the WTC, were "targeted." And that includes the Canadians.

Edited September 8, 2011 by American Woman

[WWWTT]

So what about the Air India bombing - were no Canadians targeted then? Or do you think Canadians singly became immune to being targeted since then? And what about the attack in Bali - who was - or wasn't targeted then? And do you think it made any difference to the families of those who were killed if they were actually "targeted" or not?

Canada has been singled out by terrorist groups as a target. I don't know what sense of security or righteousness or whatever you may be feeling you would get out of not believing Canadians were targeted at the WTC, but the fact is, all of the passengers on the planes, all of the people in the WTC, were "targeted." And that includes the Canadians.

Hey now just hold on a second here!I had never claimed that Air india(1984)was not an intended Canadian target or Bali.Nor did I intend to claim that Canada was never a target for terrorism.

I do not like it when people in Canada automatically assume that when the US or Britain go to war that somehow Canada must go along into "their" war.

Was it Canadas' foriegn policy that helped contribute to the attacks of 9/11?

However since Harper has bein in power he has bein lets say "inviting criticism from Islamic extremists" with his comments and stance towards /directed to the Arab nations.

Canada use to be more balanced and unbiased and yes that has changed for the worse thanks to Harper and the conservatives.

If you sincerely believe that Canada is in danger from any threat originating from an Arab/muslim nation-Thank Harper!

WWWTT

[guyser]

I had asked what can someone possibly carry in their shoes that can cause a plane to collide into a tall structure

Perhaps you could show us where anyone ever said the reason to remove shoes for inspection "was to prevent a plane from colliding into a tall structure" ?