dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 That's true for sure. But I'm confident our authorities can prevent major organized terror attacks in Canada, because they've prevented all such attacks thus far. You can watch one single guy closely, but it's very difficult to prevent them from taking their car and driving into some people, even soliders, walking around in public. Thats why its so incredibly stupid for us to be bombing muslims in the middle east that really have nothing to do with us. Theres a million muslims in Canada and Canadas hostility towards people in the middle east radicalize even one or two percent of them, then we are going to be in big trouble. Theres almost nothing you can do if an individual on his own decides he wants to lash out. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Moonlight Graham Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) Thats why its so incredibly stupid for us to be bombing muslims in the middle east that really have nothing to do with us. Theres a million muslims in Canada and Canadas hostility towards people in the middle east radicalize even one or two percent of them, then we are going to be in big trouble. Theres almost nothing you can do if an individual on his own decides he wants to lash out. It's stupid that we're bombing ISIS with only 6 jets and a few other spare parts. Why contribute next to nothing to the war against ISIS and at the same time putting a big target on Canada's back? The risk isn't worth the gesture. Either go in big or not at all. Teddy Roosevelt wisely said "Speak softy and carry a big stick". Well Canada under Harper has been speaking loudly and carrying a little stick. However, in terms of the West in general...do you really want the West to sit and do nothing while a savage Taliban-meets-al-Qaeda-type terrorist group is making good effort at establishing a fundamentalist caliphate in the middle-east run by sharia law? If not, is their a better way to approach foreign policy in the ME in these situations? Edited October 29, 2014 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Smallc Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 6 jets is a huge commitment for almost any country in the world. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying it's a silver lining that innocent civilians weren't targeted, only military and those that control the military. Not surprised with this at all. I am expecting a repeat performance of Canada "had it coming" or "asked for it", as was posted earlier on this forum about another nation with a terror attack. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/20085-well-now-ron-paul-even-agrees-on-the-reason-for-911/#entry747972 Edited October 29, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Not surprised with this at all. I am expecting a repeat performance of Canada "had it coming" or "asked for it", as was posted earlier on this forum about another nation with a terror attack. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/20085-well-now-ron-paul-even-agrees-on-the-reason-for-911/#entry747972 Naw. Just a nutbar who happenned to get hold of a gun. Happens most days in the US. Probably where the gun came from. Quote
Mighty AC Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 If you think I have a partisan view of the world you don't really know my view of the world. I was a card carrying Martin Liberal. Hey I'm not a racist because I once had a black friend. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Big Guy Posted October 29, 2014 Author Report Posted October 29, 2014 I think it is a question of risk and return. The previous posters stated it properly. Joining the latest American Crusade into the Middle East, with a token force only to kiss the USA assets again, has put a target on our back. The Americans continue to poke their noses into a civil war and we AGAIN decide to tag along. I would prefer the radicalized crazies bent on violence, cross the border to our south and wreak their havoc there - where it belongs. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Army Guy Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 I am surprised that so many have fallen for this "war on terror". It is the blanket acceptance of using violence to curtail anything that the government deems to be "terror". So we are now going to wage a battle against "extreme fear"? This term "terrorist" has been used so often that it has now lost its credibility. Right now our airplanes are dropping bombs on people who are fighting organizations which are listed on our list of "terrorist" organizations. There are even the simple minded who try to equate terrorism with one of the oldest religions in the world. A religion practiced peacefully by about one quarter of the population of this earth. But I guess we need the odd delusional xenophobe to make the rest of us look sane and normal. Just so that i'm clear, your suggesting that terror is not an issue, that this terror problem is localized and has no effect on countries, regions. That the problem can not grow into something larger that might effect us globally. Are you suggesting that we as a people have swallowed this whole War on terror hook line and sinker.....which then allows our government to use that very acceptance into chasing any government agendas....What agenda does the Canadian government have that we as citizens should be so concern with ? well the term terrorist has been used alot, but then again it is the NEW form of warfare, anyone with any opinion can use it, all it takes is the will to do it, it is cheap, does not require an army of any great size, and yet it goes again'st our very own thoughts of freedoms, our own very existance....We as a nation have built our society around rules and laws which allows us to carry on with life as we know it today....being able to go to the food store without getting blown up, sending our kids to school, working so we can provide for our families....so we can peacefully raise our families in our current enviroment.... Terrorism wants to tear all that apart, we as a nation decided long ago that majority rules....but Terrorist don't give a rats ass about any of that , they are prepared to use violence and terror to make their piont, to get what they want...be it a new nation, or for animal rights, etc etc....We can imagine if our own nation had 36 million different opinions on how we should live and conduct ourselfs, and each of us were willing to use violence to get our own way....not just to use violence but determined to fight for these opinions until death....I thought we had already done that in WWI, WWII.... So for some of us terrorism needs to be dealt with when ever it crops up, or we need to re examine what we consider more important, the majority....or our current system of governence....or who ever has the strongest opinion that was won through violence..... Right now our planes are bombing a group that i don't think anyone would have a problem with labeling them terrorist, by any defination... I'm sure that if you asked that question, which religion is identified as having strong ties to terrorism i think the majority would say Islam....Why is that, well all one has to do is turn on the TV or goggle terrorist, and find out which race or religion is behind it, and the majority of cases it will be Islam....I'm not saying every person who practices Islam is a terrorist, but the majority of those that do, are Muslim....Why is that? Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 6 jets is a huge commitment for almost any country in the world. No 6 Frigates would be a huge commitment.....6 jets not so much... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 ...I would prefer the radicalized crazies bent on violence, cross the border to our south and wreak their havoc there - where it belongs. Quite to the contrary, Canada prefers that a new pipeline would cross the border to your south. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Topaz Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Here we go again, the parties are now want a definite meaning to the government word for "terrorists" and "terrorist act". The guys that killed the two military soldiers, were they terrorists or did a terrorist act? The guy, the ran down the soldiers, I believe he was a terrorist because he wanted to go overseas and fight against the West and others and sought revenge, along with having his passport taken away. The Second, by his mother and aunt, wasn't going over to fight but to learn more about his religion in another country. and also had his passport delayed, which I'm sure was peeved off, was doing crack and decided to seek revenge against the Canadian government. Can anyone be a "terrorist" if they cause terror in people mentally and emotionally only.....like a government who puts into law that causes some terror to some people etc.??? Quote
Big Guy Posted October 29, 2014 Author Report Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) To Army Guy - (Sorry, my cut and paste is not working). Terrorism is using terror to achieve an end. To declare a "war on terror" is to declare to stop using terror as a tool. Waterboarding is an attempt to instil terror into an individual to get them to tell you want you want to hear. Dropping bombs on civilians is an attempt to instil terror into the populace to get them to do what you want them to do. In the past, a country would declare a war against another country. The target was easily identifiable, success could easily be evaluated and a win or loss would result. Our governments have created an ambiguous group, placed into that group everybody who disagrees with them and has called that group "terrorists". If you are a member of this group then you are deemed to be at war with the American coalition and susceptible to be killed on sight. Your cause does not matter and you lose any right to be treated normally. Who decides who is put into that group? Why anybody our country wants to put into that group. Look up those 50+ organizations which are deemed to be "terrorist" by Canada. Many of these groups are nationalists who are trying to gain freedom from an oppressive government but because our current government does not side with them then they are terrorists. It really is stupid. Right now our jets are in Syria dropping bombs in support of troops from organizations which are on our "terrorist" list. Right now our governments have a convenient box called "terrorists" into which it can place anybody (any nationality, culture, race, religion or whatever) because IT decides that the person is a bad guy - with no explanation. As to what is happening in Syria and Iraq, I suggest that it is a civil war with Iraq and Syrians soldiers fighting other Iraq and Syrian soldiers. As to what atrocities are taking place, I will wait until this conflict is over when an objective assessment takes place. As to cutting somebody's head off, who is not a soldier, is abhorrent - but no more abhorrent than obliterating innocent civilians with bombs. I would be interested in what criteria you would use to place a person or an organization on your personal "terrorist" group. As to Islam being the breeding colony for "terrorism", I believe that is a simplistic view for those looking for easy answers and satisfying their xenophobic leanings. Edited October 29, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
eyeball Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 However, in terms of the West in general...do you really want the West to sit and do nothing while a savage Taliban-meets-al-Qaeda-type terrorist group is making good effort at establishing a fundamentalist caliphate in the middle-east run by sharia law? If not, is their a better way to approach foreign policy in the ME in these situations? How about more dictators? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Smallc Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 No 6 Frigates would be a huge commitment.....6 jets not so much... Given what is available, it's a huge contribution. Canada is one of the few countries that can deploy 10 jets indefinitely. We have two different fleets in the region totalling up to 10. Fighter forces are not as large as they were in the past. Many countries now fly less than 20 in operational squadrons. Quote
jbg Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Thats why its so incredibly stupid for us to be bombing muslims in the middle east that really have nothing to do with us. Theres a million muslims in Canada and Canadas hostility towards people in the middle east radicalize even one or two percent of them, then we are going to be in big trouble. Theres almost nothing you can do if an individual on his own decides he wants to lash out.Meaning Canadians have to walk on eggshells because their guests have shown their fangs? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 My individual sense of my own privacy would be very different than it was before. I cannot imagine how Canada will ever be the same when millions of us are stuck living with the sense the government is always trying to look over their shoulder. This makes no sense whatever. The government already has all your economic and health information. What more do you think they care about? Do you think they want to know about your video game activity or what you write in on-line forums? I mean, we're not even talking about them reading emails. We're talking about them having a massive databank of connection history in which your calls would be a miniscule piece and almost certainly never, ever even looked at. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Oh. Now it's worldwide and only the religious-motivated violence, which actually isn't religious motivated at all but geopolitically motivated (at least if you take the word of the intelligence community, but why would you?). So when ISIS is posting religious screeds on how the Koran justifies them taking infidel women as sex slaves they're really masking their interest in geopolitics? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Can you tell me specifically what it is you want the police to be able to do that they cant do now? Im not quite clear... one moment it will seem like you are just talking about access to metadata, and the next it seems like you are talking about being able to store and datamine content. I don't think the police should be able to routinely read my emails and texts, listen to my phone calls, nor do I think they should be able to hack my computer on a whim or survey where I'm going on the internet without a specific suspicion about me which gets them a warrant. As for metadata. I don't give a damn what they collect. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 That's true for sure. But I'm confident our authorities can prevent major organized terror attacks in Canada, because they've prevented all such attacks thus far. That's totally illogical. Past performance is no guarantee of future behaviour. We don't know that any actual, trained and motivated terrorist group has ever attempted to launch an attack in Canada, so we can't even know if what the government has done to date was or was not effective. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 I don't think the police should be able to routinely read my emails and texts, listen to my phone calls, nor do I think they should be able to hack my computer on a whim or survey where I'm going on the internet without a specific suspicion about me which gets them a warrant. As for metadata. I don't give a damn what they collect. Ok so were good then? The policy can already get metadata whenever they want it. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) Thats why its so incredibly stupid for us to be bombing muslims in the middle east that really have nothing to do with us. So we should just let whatever happens happen in the world? I mean, if a new Nazi party rises somewhere and starts gassing Jews that's just not our problem, right? If ISIS wants to behead children and take infidel women as sex slaves, hey, not our issue. And if ISIS continues to flourish, absent western intervention, and takes over the middle east from Iran to Monocco, and then starts building nuclear weapons, well, still not our problem. Until they start going off in western cities. THEN you'll probably, ever so reluctantly, consider the possibility that maybe someone should do something about it (not us of course!) Theres a million muslims in Canada and Canadas hostility towards people in the middle east radicalize even one or two percent of them, then we are going to be in big trouble. If Muslims are so attached to their own people far away, even those in countries they've never been to and can't speak the language, maybe we ought to reconsider admitting them to Canada as citizens at all. Edited October 29, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Ok so were good then? The policy can already get metadata whenever they want it. I don't know what they can do. I know I see nothing in the bill tabled the other day which gives me any concern. There's likely to be a further bill. I'll see what it says when it's presented. Maybe you ought to wait and do the same. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 So when ISIS is posting religious screeds on how the Koran justifies them taking infidel women as sex slaves they're really masking their interest in geopolitics? They're not exactly masking them. It's in their name for God's sake. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Past performance is no guarantee of future behaviour. Funny you don't use that logic with accepting immigrants from parts of the world that are in conflict. Quote
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 I don't know what they can do. I know I see nothing in the bill tabled the other day which gives me any concern. There's likely to be a further bill. I'll see what it says when it's presented. Maybe you ought to wait and do the same. I guess I have no choice. But I have yet to see any tangible reason for any new legislation at all. Just paranoid knee-jerk reactionism. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.