Do Canadians feel safer?

[fellowtraveller]

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!

The Bali bombings killed over 200 young people, about 80% of them Australians. The bombers though they were targeting Americans. That is not an opinion.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

The point is, it's not "our" war. Canadians have been targeted, Canadians have been killed. What would make you assume, as you recognize that Canadians have been targeted, that this isn't also Canada's war? But if Canada is to be a member of NATO, what you like or don't like is irrelevant in that respect.

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

Were the attacks of 9-11 the only terrorist attacks? You yourself just admitted that Canada is also a target and has been a target in the past.

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.

what are you saying - that Harper should walk on egg shells as to not offend the Arab nations? That he should set Canada's foreign policy around what would make Arabs happy?

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

When was it more balanced and unbiased? When the Air India bombing occurred? When Chretien went to war in Afghanistan? Somewhere in between those two events? Or was it always and forever before Harper became PM? Because if that's what you're saying, you are contradicting yourself.

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

I believed it before I ever heard of Harper.

[WWWTT]

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" ?

I am sorry but you are making an assumption without checking.Do your homework and you will find your answer!

Yes someone a few pages back did make this implication and I was commenting on it.But for some reason the only responces I get back just keep getting more and more rediculous.

If you can not provide a logical explanation than please save yourself the embarassment and do not make a comment that tries to make me look dumb.Just move on!

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

The Bali bombings killed over 200 young people, about 80% of them Australians. The bombers though they were targeting Americans. That is not an opinion.

I'm going to need you to provide sources to back up that claim.........

Thank you.

Edited to add: Your claim is incorrect -

Australians were deliberately targeted in last year's Bali bombings, according to transcripts of police interviews with suspects, which have been aired on Australian television.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation's (ABC) Four Corners current affairs programme said it had obtained records of confessions made to police by several of the alleged bombers, which was aired on Monday.

The programme said it had a transcript of suspect Imam Samudra telling police that Australia was punished for its close relationship with the US, and for its involvement in East Timor's transition to independence from Indonesia in 1999.

link

Edited September 8, 2011 by American Woman

[WWWTT]

The point is, it's not "our" war. Canadians have been targeted, Canadians have been killed. What would make you assume, as you recognize that Canadians have been targeted, that this isn't also Canada's war? But if Canada is to be a member of NATO, what you like or don't like is irrelevant in that respect.

Were the attacks of 9-11 the only terrorist attacks? You yourself just admitted that Canada is also a target and has been a target in the past.

what are you saying - that Harper should walk on egg shells as to not offend the Arab nations? That he should set Canada's foreign policy around what would make Arabs happy?

I do not believe you are properly reading what I am writing or you are putting words in my mouth!

Is "Air India" a Canadian airline?I know "Air Canada" is,along with several others.

Now I believe what I have written earlier does not imply any opinion on Air India or Bali(I have not refreshed my knowledge enough to make a strong stance on either topic).However I prefer to remain indifferent on these two other related topics so that I may change or remain nuetral in my opinion.

As far as your "Harper walking on eggshells" comment goes I can see you won't be an ambassador any time soon!

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

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.

You and BM are on to something here. Most folks, especially the media, tend to think of people in large blocks, like nations or races. Yet usually actions like 911 are planned and executed by a relatively small number of fanatics. What percentage of the Irish population were active members of the IRA?

Particularly the Taliban! This was a group that had to constantly use force to stay in command of its people. Like East Germany, people only stayed because they could be shot for leaving.

And things really didn't work out the way Al-Queda and it's supporters like the Taliban thought it would! They made the classic mistake of relating to each other, drinking their own bath water and thinking they understood how America would react. It's likely that the American response was drafted years ago, since the required logic is pretty clear.

Terrorism is more difficult to deal with because it is not an official declaration of war from a nation state. A focus group can get a nation's sanction, or even be a de facto military agent for a nation power and commit acts of aggression against another country, leaving that country without a clear target for retaliation. Tehran could hide behind a terrorist group and set off a nuke in Salem, Oregon. How could the USA launch a nuclear strike back at Iran, killing all those innocents who had nothing to do with the initial decision and really never supported the mullah dictatorship anyway?

However, 911 did cross a line. It was the first act of terrorism enacted on American soil of any significance. Simple games theory demanded that America respond. In that case although Al-Queda had no fixed location they did rely on the Taliban in Afghanistan for training camps and a "home base", with the tacit support of the ruling government of that country.

American didn't have a clear target with Al-Queda but she DID have one with Afghanistan! She ignored the traditional niceties of a declaration of war against Afghanistan and instead called it a "War on Terrorism". The Taliban was ousted from power and although they still are a problem with IEDs and such they are only a shadow of their former selves. They have paid a heavy price for their folly.

That was the message sent to the Arab/Islamic terrorist world. If you support a terrorist group in an action on American soil YOU will pay the price! Without the aid and resources of a national government a group like Al-Queda has a much more difficult time. Not impossible, of course but FAR more difficult!

I really don't think that the Taliban understood what would happen if they supported Osama. They had fooled themselves that America would rant and roar and do nothing of significance, like Clinton when after the USS Cole was attacked sent a cruise missile to blow up an Aspirin factory.

They were wrong and now they are history. Despite the fact that western nations are slowly pulling out of Afghanistan it is very likely that if it ever looked like the Taliban were about to regain power they would be back!

It's a simple case of "If I can't reach YOU I will burn down your house and salt your fields!" The message seems to have gotten through because so far nothing on the scale of 911 has occurred. It could happen, of course, but the terrorists would have to be FAR more careful to do it all with absolutely no support from a nation state! With no money and no protected home base their task is much harder.

[WWWTT]

However, 911 did cross a line. It was the first act of terrorism enacted on American soil of any significance. Simple games theory demanded that America respond.

I guess the Oklahoma bombing is not signifigant?

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Added to the bringing the Sky Marshalls & RCMP CACPP back, (amongst other countries programs) domestic North American airlines, compared to pre 9/11, are relatively safe again.

[Argus]

Simple! The Japanese airport management and the politicians involved are simply more intelligent than ours!

What else is new?

Do you know that Canadian airport runways are not grooved? We are pretty much the only western country that doesn't care if aircraft which are landing hydroplane right off the runway and crash.

[Argus]

Were the Canadian citizens the intended target for the attack in 9/11?

So if I shoot your mom, thinking she's someone else, and say "Whoops, meant to kill that old woman over there," are you going to smile and shrug it off?

[Argus]

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.

I'm willing to bet four armed men, one of whom can fly, would have little difficulty forcing their way aboard a cargo plane. There is minimal security around the cargo areas, and they can likely take off and crash into a nearby building before anyone can really do anything about it.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

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.

The threat of sinking a cruise ship at sea (and the inside passage) is relatively small. Unlike the USS Cole, the ships are moving, try in your personal boat to come alongside a moving cruise ship or BC Ferry. Even if you can get close then detonate a fertilizer bomb, the majority of the damage would be above the waterline and the British/Dutch/Norwegian flag cruise ships are so well compartmentalized and are equipped with modern fire fighting gear, it’s doubtful it would even take on much water.

Smuggling on a bomb and/or weapons, though very difficult, would be, in my opinion, more effective form of terror……..you wouldn’t sink the ship, but not many people would be booking Alaskan cruises the following seasons…………..Same with the BC Ferries……….Smuggle on the fertilizer bomb in the back of Budget box van onto the bottom vehicle deck, your chances of over whelming the fire suppression and possibly sinking one of the vessels would be easier than coming alongside.

That being said, next time you’re in the line-up at the ferries, try and count how many clean-cut looking men/women you see “taking their Lab for a pre ferry poop”

[Guest Derek L]

Terrorism is more difficult to deal with because it is not an official declaration of war from a nation state. A focus group can get a nation's sanction, or even be a de facto military agent for a nation power and commit acts of aggression against another country, leaving that country without a clear target for retaliation. Tehran could hide behind a terrorist group and set off a nuke in Salem, Oregon. How could the USA launch a nuclear strike back at Iran, killing all those innocents who had nothing to do with the initial decision and really never supported the mullah dictatorship anyway?

If any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon was used on the United States (Or Israel) and Iran was suspected, the place would be turned into a glass parking lot within hours.

[Saipan]

do not make a comment that tries to make me look dumb.Just move on!

Actually your comments do that.

[Saipan]

Added to the bringing the Sky Marshalls & RCMP CACPP back, (amongst other countries programs) domestic North American airlines, compared to pre 9/11, are relatively safe again.

At EXTRA expense WE pay for.

Pilot's 9mm or .357 is LOT cheaper.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm willing to bet four armed men, one of whom can fly, would have little difficulty forcing their way aboard a cargo plane. There is minimal security around the cargo areas, and they can likely take off and crash into a nearby building before anyone can really do anything about it.

Though that is possible, I’d think what threat that keeps security services up at night, would be more along the lines of terrorists going into a crowded mall, school or subway/bus with automatic weapons and a explosive vest……….In my view, that would be a lot easier and more effective in terms of creating terror……..look at Israel.

[Saipan]

I guess the Oklahoma bombing is not signifigant?

It was. So why import more?

'Though it didn't cost billions of dolars around the globe beefing up all airports, and hunreds of millions of wasted hours for passengers. Beng afraid to bring even a friggin nail clipper.

[Guest Derek L]

At EXTRA expense WE pay for.

Pilot's 9mm or .357 is LOT cheaper.

I'm not opposed in arming pilots, but don’t think there would be no cost……..training, proficiency, laws pertaining to the use of firearms etc…Who do you think would pay for that?……And any weapons used aboard an airliner by police would likely be a smaller calibre than 9/10mm, let alone .357.…….at most, .22 LR…..more likely a tazer

[Guest American Woman]

I do not believe you are properly reading what I am writing or you are putting words in my mouth!

Is "Air India" a Canadian airline?I know "Air Canada" is,along with several others.

Now I believe what I have written earlier does not imply any opinion on Air India or Bali(I have not refreshed my knowledge enough to make a strong stance on either topic).

This is what you said. Your words.

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.

So what exactly were you saying??

However I prefer to remain indifferent on these two other related topics so that I may change or remain nuetral in my opinion.

Ummmmm. Okay.

But fyi regarding the Air India bombing: It was Canada's worst mass murder - 329 people were killed. IN DEPTH: AIR INDIA The Bombing of Air India Flight 182 CBC News Online | September 25, 2006

As far as your "Harper walking on eggshells" comment goes I can see you won't be an ambassador any time soon!

So you don't have an answer, eh? Alright then. Nice *ahem* 'discussing' this with you.

[guyser]

I am sorry but you are making an assumption without checking.Do your homework and you will find your answer!

Learn what 'Assumption " means, then come back and edit your post.

Thanks

If you can not provide a logical explanation

No one can fly a plane into a building using a tool in their shoes. Happy now?

than please save yourself the embarassment and do not make a comment that tries to make me look dumb.Just move on!

WWWTT

Tries?

You do that all on your own my friend.

[Saipan]

I'm not opposed in arming pilots, but don’t think there would be no cost……..training, proficiency

They were very proficient before being disarmed.

And any weapons used aboard an airliner by police would likely be a smaller calibre than 9/10mm, let alone .357

WHY?

[WWWTT]

Nice *ahem* 'discussing' this with you.

Please tell me you will go away now

WWWTT

[Jack Weber]

Learn what 'Assumption " means, then come back and edit your post.

Thanks

No one can fly a plane into a building using a tool in their shoes. Happy now?

Tries?

You do that all on your own my friend.

WWWTT gets punked again...

Let's all await the ,"You're busting my gut with your hillarious comedy posting routine,buddy!" standard response...

[WWWTT]

WWWTT gets punked again...

Let's all await the ,"You're busting my gut with your hillarious comedy posting routine,buddy!" standard response...

Actually this thread's entertainment value has faded away(kind of sad really).

But feel free to have the last word.

The more crazy and absurd the better!

Tell you what,if you make up a comment that is so flippin whacked out and spun I'll keep debating in this thread,if your comments fail to produce the usual creative-head scratchin-where did that come from responce from me then I've moved on.

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

I guess the Oklahoma bombing is not signifigant?

WWWTT

Sorry! I should have said 'foreign' terrorists, which of course is within the context of my post. Nowhere did I day or do I believe that there are no domestic terrorists or terrorists from other than Islamic countries.

That being said, we need to have some obvious perspective here. The amount of terrorism from those two sources is 'mice nuts' compared to what has come from the more fundamentalist, yea primitive and barbaric! Islamic countries.