Bob Macadoo Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 What could happen if C51 is in place is that someone's rights might be lost. But that's okay because the SCOC would see they got them back. What could happen if C51 isn't in place is that someone might be killed. But that's okay because the SCOC would bring them back to life. Either way is good, I guess. If you believe the imminent threat is real someone will get killed b/c of this bill. You now allow CSIS to perform clandestine operations on domestic soil. This was previously the purview of RCMP. Left hand doesn't and doesn't have to know what the right ass cheek knows or does. Can anyone say 9/11 since everyon likes to go to the bogeyman scenarios?These 2 jurisdictions will be in a constant sword fight and we'll lose b/c of it. If anything happens that is lost in oversight each will say they thought the other guy had it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Out of all the really stupid stuff that's been said by people on both sides of the debate, this is the most recent. Well done. Until now. Edited March 17, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 If you believe the imminent threat is real someone will get killed b/c of this bill. You now allow CSIS to perform clandestine operations on domestic soil. This was previously the purview of RCMP. Left hand doesn't and doesn't have to know what the right ass cheek knows or does. Can anyone say 9/11 since everyon likes to go to the bogeyman scenarios? These 2 jurisdictions will be in a constant sword fight and we'll lose b/c of it. If anything happens that is lost in oversight each will say they thought the other guy had it. Okay, fair point. What does the incompetence of an organization have to do with the bill? Surely that is a separate issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Lone wolf attacks like the one in Ottawa won't be prevented. Lone moose attacks won't either. . C52 is moose. I support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Okay, fair point. What does the incompetence of an organization have to do with the bill? Surely that is a separate issue. The incompetence of having a decent, or well thought out security apparatus leads to the bill which will expand the organizations power. It is NOT a separate issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 I think it is. One has to assume a certain level of competence on the part of law enforcers when one is a law maker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 I think it is. One has to assume a certain level of competence on the part of law enforcers when one is a law maker. Competence is not the correct word. 'Not adequate' , might be a better term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) No, it's not about that. I've just noticed that there's a lot of paranoia from some about how they think our rights are in jeopardy and may be destroyed through C-51 and how we have to fight to prevent this at all costs, however when the discussion turns to the increased terrorist threats and what should be done to prevent potential attacks, some of these same people take on the attitude that we don't need to worry about perceived threats and that inflating the perceived risk and reacting to it is foolish. Seems like these people are falling into their own trap to me. There seems to be quite a bit of unmitigated fear and paranoia, as well as inflated rhetoric around this issue from both sides of the spectrum. C-51 in and of itself is not going to destroy our rights. It is just one more step in a process that was initiated years ago. The threat to our freedoms stems out of our and our allies foolish foreign policies.I notice most people and governments are paranoid about discussing this, dismiss it as inflated rhetoric and are quite happy to trap us in a cycle of galvanizing events and legislative reactions that are eroding and yes destroying our freedoms piece by piece. Edited March 17, 2015 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) C52 is moose. I support it.About time!Those deadly moose are on the rampage about now! ? . Edited March 17, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 How The FBI created a terrorist Informant-led sting operations are central to the FBI’s counterterrorism program. Of 508 defendants prosecuted in federal terrorism-related cases in the decade after 9/11, 243 were involved with an FBI informant, while 158 were the targets of sting operations. Of those cases, an informant or FBI undercover operative led 49 defendants in their terrorism plots, similar to the way Osmakac was led in his. In these cases, the FBI says paid informants and undercover agents are foiling attacks before they occur. But the evidence suggests — and a recent Human Rights Watch report on the subject illustrates — that the FBI isn’t always nabbing would-be terrorists so much as setting up mentally ill or economically desperate people to commit crimes they could never have accomplished on their own. Kinda sounds like the case in BC of the two losers who cooked up a half baked plan to bomb Canada Day events, all with the help of the RCMP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Kinda sounds like the case in BC of the two losers who cooked up a half baked plan to bomb Canada Day events, all with the help of the RCMP.This is quite interesting . It is similar in that police forces have (or are) equipment they roll out to enforce the laws , the same equipment being totally unecessary for the actions that they are performing . In other words, if we dont get the desired results we want, lets make the scneario one where we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 This is quite interesting . It is similar in that police forces have (or are) equipment they roll out to enforce the laws , the same equipment being totally unecessary for the actions that they are performing . In other words, if we dont get the desired results we want, lets make the scneario one where we do. The terrorist threat: as real as we can make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Okay, fair point. What does the incompetence of an organization have to do with the bill? Surely that is a separate issue. They are not separate issues if there is insufficient oversight to ensure bureaucratic incompetence doesn't creep in.....which it will.......I'm sure the FBI/CIA thought they were competent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) I notice most people and governments are paranoid about discussing this, dismiss it as inflated rhetoric and are quite happy to trap us in a cycle of galvanizing events and legislative reactions that are eroding and yes destroying our freedoms piece by piece. We're not paranoid about it at all. Yes, we dismiss it as inflated rhetoric, but that's because it is. This slippery slope nonsense you're peddling to us is one of the most obvious and clichéd logical fallacies there is. It's the same argument the folks down South in Bible Land put forth anytime gun control is mentioned. Edited March 17, 2015 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 We're not paranoid about it at all. Yes, we dismiss it as inflated rhetoric, but that's because it is. This slippery slope nonsense you're peddling to us is one of the most obvious and clichéd logical fallacies there is. It's the same argument the folks down South in Bible Land put forth anytime gun control is mentioned. It has nothing to do with a slippery slope. It has to do with the fact that the legislation is too broad and has no oversight. It's not going to slide down a slope. It has the potential to be abused from day 1. That's the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 We're not paranoid about it at all. Yes, we dismiss it as inflated rhetoric, but that's because it is. This slippery slope nonsense you're peddling to us is one of the most obvious and clichéd logical fallacies there is. It's the same argument the folks down South in Bible Land put forth anytime gun control is mentioned. There are several posters here who oppose the bill and aren't scared CSIS are monitoring for me to say XL + protest so they haul me away. We actually have substantive arguments as to the details with the bill.....and the lack of thoroughness that we've come to expect. It's just lazily easy to pick out the "slope-heads" to debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerve Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) More white supremacists than terrorists? Edited March 21, 2015 by nerve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 What could happen if C51 is in place is that someone's rights might be lost. But that's okay because the SCOC would see they got them back. What could happen if C51 isn't in place is that someone might be killed. But that's okay because the SCOC would bring them back to life. Either way is good, I guess. Fairly silly comment really. But the way the SCC will reaffirm our charter rights will be by striking down major parts if not all of the bill. So why waste the time, and money, yet again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Fairly silly comment really. But the way the SCC will reaffirm our charter rights will be by striking down major parts if not all of the bill. So why waste the time, and money, yet again. Of course it was silly. You're the second poster who has taken it at face value. Get a grip! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Of course it was silly. You're the second poster who has taken it at face value. Get a grip! It seemed to suggest more of the fear mongering some supporters of this bill attempt to promote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 It was meant to suggest that if the fear mongering indulged in by both groups was to come to pass, only one outcome could be reversed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 It was meant to suggest that if the fear mongering indulged in by both groups was to come to pass, only one outcome could be reversed. That would presuppose the probability of the events were 1. They are not......that's what makes the different. Risk = Consequence x Probability. It seems to be a basic equation some have forgotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 It's an equation I'm not familiar with, but wouldn't that fact that the events have already occurred have a bearing on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 It's an equation I'm not familiar with, but wouldn't that fact that the events have already occurred have a bearing on it? Yes they have an affect on probability.....in some cases increasing it yet in others decreasing it.....still doesn't make it equal certainty (1). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 It's an equation I'm not familiar with, ..... Neither is our government....with respect to terrorism, train derailments, pipeline failures, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.