Do Canadians feel safer?

[Guest Derek L]

You'd need fast escort boats that could intercept small boats before they get close enough to a warship or a passenger vessel.

Both are common enough in addition to the large mosquito fleet of sporties and recreational boaters roaring around off Vancouver Island for example. ROE that included shooting small boats that approach too closely would result in boats being blown out of the water on a daily basis around here. Take the number of amateurs alone that simply don't understand the fundamentals of avoiding a collision - who imagine they have the right of way because they're trolling for example.

It's just a good thing I only have a ship's horn instead of a battery of Exocet missiles.

And the use of armed RHIBs & small aluminum hull boats is more common now amongest navies for that very reason........Again, small boats would obviously be hailed numerous times prior to being "blown out the water".

Edited September 9, 2011 by Derek L

[Wild Bill]

You'd need fast escort boats that could intercept small boats before they get close enough to a warship or a passenger vessel.

/quote]

I always thought the rule was "Sail before steam!", eyeball!

[bush_cheney2004]

And the use of armed RHIBs & small aluminum hull boats is more common now amongest navies for that very reason........Again, small boats would obviously be hailed numerous times prior to being "blown out the water".

Agreed, but even before such small craft were available, there were some basic services and procedures to follow while entering and exiting port. Tugs working a power make-up usually is enough to ward off casual pleasure craft, and other auxillary vessels can provide escort duty. The pilot boat is also another resource. Most drunken yahoos just want a closer look at the ship. We had some Greenpeace idiots try to interfere with Trident submarine operations at Bangor or Kings Bay, but they never got very close because of security measures.

[bush_cheney2004]

I always thought the rule was "Sail before steam!", eyeball!

Not in a marked channel with vessels constrained by draft.

[William Ashley]

And the use of armed RHIBs & small aluminum hull boats is more common now amongest navies for that very reason........Again, small boats would obviously be hailed numerous times prior to being "blown out the water".

They were in foreign waters, with out authorization form the host country it would be an act of war, especially to blow up a nationals boat. They could run it over most likely but blowing it out of the water is another matter completely.

Normally the side of the ship and the size give notice as to who needs to move.

The distance is often "judgement based" for safety reasons. However US law and NAVY procedure do not effect foreign ships in a foreign port. If the US doesn't like the port rules, they can choose another port. Its not theirs.

Edited September 9, 2011 by William Ashley

[Guest Derek L]

Agreed, but even before such small craft were available, there were some basic services and procedures to follow while entering and exiting port. Tugs working a power make-up usually is enough to ward off casual pleasure craft, and other auxillary vessels can provide escort duty. The pilot boat is also another resource. Most drunken yahoos just want a closer look at the ship. We had some Greenpeace idiots try to interfere with Trident submarine operations at Bangor or Kings Bay, but they never got very close because of security measures.

I suppose if the Greenpeace folks were trying to mess with a boomer, they wouldn’t be too well received by the folks from MCSFR....

[Army Guy]

They were in foreign waters, with out authorization form the host country it would be an act of war, especially to blow up a nationals boat. They could run it over most likely but blowing it out of the water is another matter completely.

A naval ves from any nation is sovereign territory and can be defended any where, any time , including blowing boats, swimmers etc, what ever out of the water.....

[Guest Derek L]

They were in foreign waters, with out authorization form the host country it would be an act of war, especially to blow up a nationals boat. They could run it over most likely but blowing it out of the water is another matter completely.

Normally the side of the ship and the size give notice as to who needs to move.

The distance is often "judgement based" for safety reasons. However US law and NAVY procedure do not effect foreign ships in a foreign port. If the US doesn't like the port rules, they can choose another port. Its not theirs.

An act of war? The CIA conduct drone missions in other countries airspace, and Yemen and Pakistan have yet to declared war……..Incidents like the USS COLE bombing or the HMS Cornwall’s run in with the Iranians are exceptions to the rule………..Do you really think if a foreign navy sunk a dhow chalked full of explosives, the host nation would complain?

Modern warships are difficult to sink, which is evident by the above mentioned USS COLE, and incidents involving the USS STARK (x2 Exocet) and USS Princeton & USS Tripoli (Mines). Even with the British losses during the Falklands war, like the US incidents, these can be attributed more to human error, lack of training, obscene ROEs and political negligence in some cases.

[fellowtraveller]

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

No, my claim is accurate. The Bali bombings of October 2002(not the less destructive ones of 2005) were aimed primarily at America, and the main blast came at the same time as a failed attack on the US consulate. The bombers had initially targeted US oil facilites in the area, but gave up because they were too difficult. The Kuta attack was chosen because it was a soft target. It is true that Austarlia was a target, but only secondarily and part of a group of 'friends of America' Anecdotally, I was in Bali in Decemeber 2002 and local people felt the bombings were also directed at them. Explaining why to you would involve more space than we have here, and involves the politics and economy and religion of Bali/Indonesia. It is a sad story in its own right. LOcals felt the bombers were both too dumb to differntiate between different nationalities and did not care much anyway.

These are the words of the guy who planned and executed the Bali bombing of 2002: " In a book entitled, Aku Melawan Teroris (“I am fighting for Terrorism”), Imam Samudra,

the mastermind of the Bali operation, offers several justifications for choosing Bali as a

target. His rationale is heavy in religious arguments and keeps in line with al-Qaeda’s

global jihadi agenda.

Imam Samudra argues that the main targets of the Bali bombing is the United States and

its allies, namely England, France, Australia, Germany, Belgium, China, India, and

Orthodox Russia. "

Here is the link, for some reason I cannot insert it http://las.reviewhudson.org/files/publications/AcharyaTheBaliBombings.pdf

Edited September 9, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[GostHacked]

I guess the Oklahoma bombing is not signifigant?

WWWTT

Waco could be considered another.

[GostHacked]

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.

That is one thing my pal has to contend with now and then, he is a firefighter at the airport. Plane hydroplaned skidded off the runway a bit and buried a wing tip in the ground.

[GostHacked]

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.

The attack of 9/11 was on the USA, not Canada. Remember those guys hate the USA's freedoms, not Canada's freedoms. Purely by association through NATO would anyone make the notion that Canada was attacked as well. Yes we have had terror attacks, and some of them were local as well (FLQ) but, like Black Dog is saying, you are more likely to get killed in several other ways before a terror attack.

More likely to get killed by lighting.

More likely to actually get hit by lightning, twice.

More likely to die in a car accident.

More likely to die walking down the street.

I just don't see terrorism as the threat our leaders make it out to be. If anything our leaders are terrorizing us by constantly trying to keep us in fear over an upcoming terror attack.

[Guest Derek L]

The attack of 9/11 was on the USA, not Canada. Remember those guys hate the USA's freedoms, not Canada's freedoms. Purely by association through NATO would anyone make the notion that Canada was attacked as well. Yes we have had terror attacks, and some of them were local as well (FLQ) but, like Black Dog is saying, you are more likely to get killed in several other ways before a terror attack.

More likely to get killed by lighting.

More likely to actually get hit by lightning, twice.

More likely to die in a car accident.

More likely to die walking down the street.

I just don't see terrorism as the threat our leaders make it out to be. If anything our leaders are terrorizing us by constantly trying to keep us in fear over an upcoming terror attack.

If a terror attack did occur within Canada then, you wouldn’t blame the government? Kind of damned if you do, damned if you don’t……..I replace the batteries in my smoke & CO detector every six months, and have the fire extinguisher in the kitchen recharged when the expiry comes due, since I’ve never had a fire in any of my homes since childhood, I suppose I could stop wasting my time doing this…..

Edited September 9, 2011 by Derek L

[fellowtraveller]

If a terror attack did occur within Canada then, you wouldn’t blame the government? Kind of damned if you do, damned if you don’t……..I replace the batteries in my smoke & CO detector every six months, and have the fire extinguisher in the kitchen recharged when the expiry comes due, since I’ve never had a fire in any of my homes since childhood, I suppose I could stop wasting my time doing this…..

Yep, it is very hard to quantify the value of increased security except in its abscence, when it gets much easier.

It is like insurance, who needs it?

I see the security of citizens- all aspects- as the number one priority of the government, no other contenders.

And overall, I do feel safe in Canada.

I wonder if those who do not have any perspective, have they travelled or lived elsewhere where personal safety is not assumed?

[eyeball]

Canadians have been targeted, Canadians have been killed.

No Canadian was targeted as such. Collateral damage is the term you use when innocent people are caught in the crossfire.

[Guest Derek L]

Yep, it is very hard to quantify the value of increased security except in its abscence, when it gets much easier.

It is like insurance, who needs it?

I see the security of citizens- all aspects- as the number one priority of the government, no other contenders.

And overall, I do feel safe in Canada.

I wonder if those who do not have any perspective, have they travelled or lived elsewhere where personal safety is not assumed?

All things considered , I too feel relatively safe in Canada. That’s not to say we shouldn’t take proper safeguards to protect ourselves. Just as it’s prudent (for us West Coasters) to be prepared for a major earthquake in the lower mainland. Having a couple of months of canned food & bottled water, first aid supplies (plus lots of guns and ammo lol) is initially a small investment for any household, just as investing in the military, RCMP and other security services for a nation can be costly………But in the event of an earthquake/natural disaster or a terrorist threat it can’t be argued that being prepared is a waste of money.

I always get a kick out of those that claim we (plus Israel/United States/UK/etc) live within a police state comparable to something like Nazi Germany or something from 1984.…….If that was the case, what makes these folks feel that “big Brother” just wouldn’t pick them off?

Or in the case of the G20 protests in Toronto……..How many protestors where killed? I’d love to see them try and protest in Communist China….or Iran….or North Korea………How much protesting was going on in Nazi Germany? How does the state deal with opponents of it’s policies?

[Guest American Woman]

No Canadian was targeted as such. Collateral damage is the term you use when innocent people are caught in the crossfire.

Apparently it's the term you use when denying reality. Al Qaeda has not once expressed regret over killing Canadians on 9-11 - or in any other attack. I've never heard al Qaeda say that it was targeting Americans only - that it was fine with westerners, but those damn Americans have to die. In fact, in the fatwas issued against westerners - westerners are the target. In case you're unaware, that would include Canada.

But do keep telling yourself how special Canada is in al Qaeda's eyes- while asking yourself why it would be that way.

[Guest American Woman]

The attack of 9/11 was on the USA, not Canada. Remember those guys hate the USA's freedoms, not Canada's freedoms.

The attack on 9-11 was against everyone on the planes, against everyone in the WTC, against the west. What better symbol of the western world than the WTC in NYC?

Purely by association through NATO would anyone make the notion that Canada was attacked as well.

What you think is not synonymous with "anyone." There are those who deny that Canada was a target and those who see that it was an attack against the western world.

Yes we have had terror attacks, and some of them were local as well (FLQ) but, like Black Dog is saying, you are more likely to get killed in several other ways before a terror attack.

You're more likely to get killed in a car accident than before some illnesses too, so perhaps we should eliminate insurance and/or medical facilities/research in those areas. Does that make sense to you?

I just don't see terrorism as the threat our leaders make it out to be. If anything our leaders are terrorizing us by constantly trying to keep us in fear over an upcoming terror attack.

Whether you see it as a threat or not is simply your opinion. The way you see things. And if you are "terrorized" by the fact that our leaders see the need to fight back, I guess you'll have to live with the fear over an upcoming terror attack.

Me, when the government acts on behalf of my safety, I don't get terrorized in response. My feelings go in the opposite direction. Same as they do when something is being done to help eliminate cancer et al.

When steps are taken to make the world safer, my reaction isn't terror/fear.

[Guest Derek L]

Apparently it's the term you use when denying reality. Al Qaeda has not once expressed regret over killing Canadians on 9-11 - or in any other attack. I've never heard al Qaeda say that it was targeting Americans only - that it was fine with westerners, but those damn Americans have to die. In fact, in the fatwas issued against westerners - westerners are the target. In case you're unaware, that would include Canada.

But do keep telling yourself how special Canada is in al Qaeda's eyes- while asking yourself why it would be that way.

Listen here sister, don’t come on here and tell us Al-Qaeda only targets Americans….typical US arrogance

Al-Qaeda warns Canada

An al-Qaeda strategist has warned Canada to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan or face terrorist attacks similar to 9/11, Madrid and the London transit bombings

It also refers to Canada's "fanatic adherence to Christianity" as well as its purported attempts to "damage the Muslims" and its support for the "Christian Crusade" against al-Qaeda.

"They will either be forced to withdraw their forces or face an operation similar to New York, Madrid, London and their sisters, with the help of Allah."

Last month, Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, referred to Canadian troops in Kandahar as "second-rate Crusaders."

The suspected "homegrown" Canadian extremists arrested by the RCMP in Toronto on June 2 were allegedly motivated partly by their anger over Afghanistan. Authorities claim they intended to take hostages on Parliament Hill and kill the Prime Minister unless he withdrew troops from Afghanistan and released all Muslims from Canadian prisons.

The new threat claims Canada is only in Afghanistan to assert itself on the global stage for economic and religious reasons.

I hope you got the sarcasm

[Guest American Woman]

No, my claim is accurate. The Bali bombings of October 2002(not the less destructive ones of 2005) were aimed primarily at America,

And yet the link I provided, from Australia, regarding interviews with those involved, says the opposite. It says Australians were targeted in 2002.

Imam Samudra argues that the main targets of the Bali bombing is the United States and

its allies, namely England, France, Australia, Germany, Belgium, China, India, and

Orthodox Russia. "

So Australia, even according to your link, WAS targeted. One of the main targets. Yet you've made the U.S. "the [primary] target." I don't understand why some people make it into something other than what it was. Is it out of a sense of security? Out of a sense of being morally superior to the U.S.? Whatever reasons people have, it doesn't change the reality.

At any rate, I'll take the word of the police who interviewed those involved.

[Guest American Woman]

Listen here sister, don’t come on here and tell us Al-Qaeda only targets Americans….typical US arrogance

Al-Qaeda warns Canada

Oh, but I'm not saying that at all. Quite the opposite, actually.

But there are those who would say al Qaeda only targeted Canada after 9-11 - because Canada joined in "our" war. It's only because you're helping the evil U.S. that you are targeted.

I don't say that, though. I'm modest enough to recognize al Qaeda's hatred of the rest of the western world too.

I hope you got the sarcasm

Yep.

[GostHacked]

The attack on 9-11 was against everyone on the planes, against everyone in the WTC, against the west. What better symbol of the western world than the WTC in NYC?

Statue of Liberty might have been a better target, if you really want to attack 'freedoms', the SOL represents those freedoms. The WTC was part of the financial hub in America. And it is an American symbol, not a symbol of the west.

What you think is not synonymous with "anyone." There are those who deny that Canada was a target and those who see that it was an attack against the western world.

It was an attack on the USA, ... you can combine that with the attacks on the UK in 7/7 and the Madrid bombings overall as an attack on the west.

You're more likely to get killed in a car accident than before some illnesses too, so perhaps we should eliminate insurance and/or medical facilities/research in those areas. Does that make sense to you?

Well, since the fact you are more likely to get hurt if not killed in a car accident (insurance would at that point only help your surviving family) it makes sense to have car insurance. But not everyone opts-in for full coverage. Just got to realistically look at the threats we encounter on a daily basis.

Whether you see it as a threat or not is simply your opinion. The way you see things. And if you are "terrorized" by the fact that our leaders see the need to fight back, I guess you'll have to live with the fear over an upcoming terror attack.

Yes it is my opinion. And I don't fear a terror attack, I stopped living in fear years ago. Because if I live in fear, I am being controlled or coerced into a line of thinking. Our leaders keep the fear mongering up to control us and to coerce us into a line of thinking. There is a lot of money to be made in making people scared. Some company is making a killing off these body scanners that are now in airports. More security is not dealing with the issue. By not meddling in other country's affairs is also another way to prevent terror attacks.

Me, when the government acts on behalf of my safety, I don't get terrorized in response.

I applaud that you do not get terrorized. You seem to be one of the few who are not.

My feelings go in the opposite direction. Same as they do when something is being done to help eliminate cancer et al.

When steps are taken to make the world safer, my reaction isn't terror/fear.

Well that is your opinion. But to me all this security is not about terrorism. It is about controlling the population. Because now we see a so called threat of a lone-wolf scenario. Domestic lone-wolf as well. So the next terror is not coming from abroad. It's coming from within.

But we can't compare opinions to determine who is right though.

[Guest Derek L]

Oh, but I'm not saying that at all. Quite the opposite, actually.

But there are those who would say al Qaeda only targeted Canada after 9-11 - because Canada joined in "our" war. It's only because you're helping the evil U.S. that you are targeted.

I don't say that, though. I'm modest enough to recognize al Qaeda's hatred of the rest of the western world too.

Well that’s a very good point, you Americans tricked us into joining W.’s war (Forget we joined NATO, another Yankee trick?), what with our superior military capabilities, you knew beforehand that your crusade would fail against the peace & goat loving Arab people without the “True North Strong and Free” onside.

[Argus]

No Canadian was targeted as such. Collateral damage is the term you use when innocent people are caught in the crossfire.

Given they were actually targeting innocent people, I don't suppose it made much difference to them what their nationality was.

[William Ashley]

Well that is your opinion. But to me all this security is not about terrorism. It is about controlling the population. Because now we see a so called threat of a lone-wolf scenario. Domestic lone-wolf as well. So the next terror is not coming from abroad. It's coming from within.

But we can't compare opinions to determine who is right though.

Now why would people here be upset? not the cancer causing body scanners and 10% increase in taxes to pay for foreign wars and homeland security? Could it be that?