London's Underground & Toronto's TTC

[August1991]

"They're trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cow us, to frighten us out of doing the things that we want to do...and they should not and they must not succeed." Tony Blair

I'll take that quote as evidence of what has happened.

------

London and Toronto are different cities but I'll use Toronto to focus on two different questions:

Should Torontonians feel safe because the Canadian government has not sent soldiers to Iraq? IOW, were Londoners specifically targeted because of Tony Blair's decision to participate in George Bush Jnr's war? If George Bush Jnr had responded differently to those planes flying into the World Trade Centre, would London have avoided these explosions? If Bush had made an effort to understand the root causes instead of ordering cruise missiles, would we be in a different situation now?

Should Torontonians worry because Canada just passed same-sex marriage legislation? Will some people abroad view this as a provocation? Or should we not worry because what Canada does is thankfully ignored on the world stage, and Canadians never provoke anybody. Is our parliament's decision to pass same-sex marriage legislation in any way connected to potential future attacks?

[Riverwind]

If George Bush Jnr had responded differently to those planes flying into the World Trade Centre, would London have avoided these explosions?  If Bush had made an effort to understand the root causes instead of ordering cruise missiles, would we be in a different situation now?

I don't buy into the 'root causes' argument because it absolves the terrorists of responsibility for the actions and ignores the fact that most suicide bombers are not the poor and down-trodden but fairly well off middle class buffoons with too much time on their hands.

That said, the aboslute worst thing Bush could have done was declare a 'war on terrorism'. By using that language he elevated the 'criminals' who flew the planes into 'soldiers' dying for a cause. Terrorism can and should be delt with as a police matter in the same way we deal with criminal gangs.

Canada has to take terrorism seriously (as a police matter - not a war) because there is a real risk of terrorists using Canada as a base for attacking US interests inside Canada or the US. I would argue that terrorists would do more harm to Canada by blowing up customs office in Buffalo than by blowing up the CN tower. On the other hand, people riding the sky train in Vancouver or the subways in Toronto or Montreal have more to fear from the drug addicts looking for a fix than terrorists.

[GostHacked]

I agree with Sparhawk.

One difference is that Canada has tried to stay out of trying to tell everyone else how to live. As far as I can recall not one of our Canadian embasies in any foreign country has been attacked. We are not in the buisness of regime change, whereas the US has been engaging in this for decades. As a result many US embasies in other countries have fallen vitcim to attacks. As a Canadian, I do not fear an attack will happen here. If it happens, well it happens, and we should really not put alot of focus on it, and just move on. The more focus that is put on international terrorism the more you fall victim to it. I am not saying ignore the possibility outright, I am saying that we should not let it govern our lives. Don't give them the power to instill fear into you. That would just be giving the win to the terrorists.

[Argus]

That said, the aboslute worst thing Bush could have done was declare a 'war on terrorism'. By using that language he elevated the 'criminals' who flew the planes into 'soldiers' dying for a cause. Terrorism can and should be delt with as a police matter in the same way we deal with criminal gangs.

So you're suggesting the NYPD should have driven a couple of paddy wagons into Afghanistan and rounded up the 10,000 armed members of Al Quaeda for questioning? Could you expand upon the logistics of this operation?

[August1991]

GostHacked:

One difference is that Canada has tried to stay out of trying to tell everyone else how to live.

It is pleasant to stand on the sidelines and watch. But how do you understand our Parliament's decision to pass same-sex marriage legislation?

[Riverwind]

That said, the aboslute worst thing Bush could have done was declare a 'war on terrorism'. By using that language he elevated the 'criminals' who flew the planes into 'soldiers' dying for a cause. Terrorism can and should be dealt with as a police matter in the same way we deal with criminal gangs.

So you're suggesting the NYPD should have driven a couple of paddy wagons into Afghanistan and rounded up the 10,000 armed members of Al Qaeda for questioning? Could you expand upon the logistics of this operation?

Obviously the US military is better suited to rounding up criminals in that kind of environment. Bush could have done what needed to be done in Afghanistan without all of the rhetoric about the 'war of terrorism'. Al Qaeda feeds on that rhetoric just like Homolka feeds on the media frenzy surrounding her.

My solution to terrorism: treat their attacks as inconsequential and move on with business while investing in the surveillance and enforcement networks necessary to stop the attack before the happen. Do not to glorify them by declaring 'war' on them.

[Argus]

Should Torontonians feel safe because the Canadian government has not sent soldiers to Iraq?  IOW, were Londoners specifically targeted because of Tony Blair's decision to participate in George Bush Jnr's war?

Which war? The one in Iraq or the one in Afghanistan? Do people forget we have soldiers in Afghanistan and are sending more?

In any event, trying to find logic behind the blod lust of religious wackos is a pointless task. Remember Ahmed Ressam? He was the Algerian scumbag who was arrested crossing the US border from BC with a truck bomb destined for LAX. While he was in Montreal hanging out with his fellow "canadians" of Algerian extraction, one of his buddies had a really cool idea. Why not set off a really big bomb in Outremont, say a gasoline tanker belted with explosives. Was this because Canada was in Afghanistan? Nope. It was in 1999, after all. They just figured there were a lot of Jews there they could kill.

  If George Bush Jnr had responded differently to those planes flying into the World Trade Centre, would London have avoided these explosions?  If Bush had made an effort to understand the root causes instead of ordering cruise missiles, would we be in a different situation now?

I don't think these people can be dealt with any other way but by killing them. If there is a root cause it is the widespread ignorance and religious fanaticism of the Muslim world combined with dictatorships which allow no other outlet for political change. And if you suggest the US should help support democratic change - unfortunately, the way things are in the Muslim world, this would invitably read to a lot of Iran type governments, which can hardly be said to be a good thing, either for us or them.

Should Torontonians worry because Canada just passed same-sex marriage legislation?  Will some people abroad view this as a provocation?

If by "people abroad" you mean Muslims fruitloops, the only time any of them spare a thought for Canada is to wonder if they can get in, claim refugee status, and live the good life as taxi drivers.

[GostHacked]

GostHacked:

One difference is that Canada has tried to stay out of trying to tell everyone else how to live.

It is pleasant to stand on the sidelines and watch. But how do you understand our Parliament's decision to pass same-sex marriage legislation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Simple thing called equal rights. We are all equal we should all be granted the same rights by our government. If you are straight, gay, chrisitan, jewish, musilm, the government should give equal rights across the board. Basicly this treats everyone on the same level instead of treating people like second class citizens.

[BHS]

Simple thing called equal rights. We are all equal we should all be granted the same rights by our government. If you are straight, gay, chrisitan, jewish, musilm, the government should give equal rights across the board. Basicly this treats everyone on the same level instead of treating people like second class citizens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're getting way off topic here, but I object to the concept of the government "granting" rights. A right is a right because the government has done nothing to curtail it. Until recent decades, homosexual relationships were banned by law (the rights of homosexuals to pursue relationships were curtailed). Furthermore, the rights of gays to have their marriages recognized in law were curtailed by the government's standing defintion (based on the traditional definition) of what constituted a legal marriage. The government has done nothing to "grant" rights to homosexuals in a positive sense; rather, it has ended the negative practice of legally curtailing homosexual unions.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I doubt that Canadian public transportation is high up on the list of terrorist targets, for the moment. When buses start lighting up in Belgium, then I'll be scared.

[Argus]

I agree with Sparhawk.

One difference is that Canada has tried to stay out of trying to tell everyone else how to live. As far as I can recall not one of our Canadian embasies in any foreign country has been attacked. We are not in the buisness of regime change, whereas the US has been engaging in this for decades.

The US is a superpower. It has interests all across the Globe to maintain. It also does the dirty work weak-kneed nations like Canada are afraid to do, or don't have the power or prestige or economic muscle for. When China threatens Taiwan, it is the US who warns them off. When Turkey and Greece, or Pakistan and India threaten to go to war, it is the US which negotiates with them. When OPEC threatened to bankrupt the west it was the US which turned suborned individual members and set them at each other's throats. When Europe spent years wringing its hands with indecision it was the US which moved in and put an end to the Bosnian slaughters. When Asia was near bankruptcy it was the US which used its economic clout to prop up their banking system. When disasters strike anywhere in the world, as we saw recently in Indonesia, it is the US which comes to the rescue. And what does Canada do? It uhm, it holds meetings and passes resolutions. Whoopie.

Nobody would attack Canada's embassies for the same reason they wouldn't attack Luxemburg's embassies, or Guyana's; because we're supremely unimportant to everyone.

[Argus]

That said, the aboslute worst thing Bush could have done was declare a 'war on terrorism'. By using that language he elevated the 'criminals' who flew the planes into 'soldiers' dying for a cause. Terrorism can and should be dealt with as a police matter in the same way we deal with criminal gangs.

So you're suggesting the NYPD should have driven a couple of paddy wagons into Afghanistan and rounded up the 10,000 armed members of Al Qaeda for questioning? Could you expand upon the logistics of this operation?

Obviously the US military is better suited to rounding up criminals in that kind of environment. Bush could have done what needed to be done in Afghanistan without all of the rhetoric about the 'war of terrorism'. Al Qaeda feeds on that rhetoric just like Homolka feeds on the media frenzy surrounding her.

It's called leadership. I understand why you wouldn't understand or recognize it since we haven't seen any in Canada in decades. But what Bush was doing was inspiring his people and giving his soldiers a reason to go and fight and risk their lives and die for their nation.

My solution to terrorism: treat their attacks as inconsequential and move on with business while investing in the surveillance and enforcement networks necessary to stop the attack before the happen. Do not to glorify them by declaring 'war' on them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was the old policy. Under it, terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda were allowed to grow from small groups of crackpots, to international organizations with thousands of members and tens of millions in funding seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in order to bathe themselves in ever greater quantities of blood.

[Riverwind]

It's called leadership. I understand why you wouldn't understand or recognize it since we haven't seen any in Canada in decades. But what Bush was doing was inspiring his people and giving his soldiers a reason to go and fight and risk their lives and die for their nation.

Police and firemen risk their lives every day for the good of the nation. They don't need grand words about crusades or wars. They just need society to give them respect and acknowledgement for the risks they take on our behalf (not to mention being properly compensated financially). That said, Bush's motivation for his rhetoric had nothing to do with motivating soliders and everything to do with his belief that creating a 'war' would improve his chances at re-election. You also did not refute my point that elevating terrorism to 'war' status gives the terrorists credibility that they do not deserve.

That was the old policy. Under it, terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda were allowed to grow from small groups of crackpots, to international organizations with thousands of members and tens of millions in funding seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in order to bathe themselves in ever greater quantities of blood.

There is a difference. I never said we should treat these groups as harmless crack pots like we did in the past. However, we should treat them no differently that the people who burn down apartment buildings with grow ops and drug labs.

[August1991]

Nobody would attack Canada's embassies for the same reason they wouldn't attack Luxemburg's embassies, or Guyana's; because we're supremely unimportant to everyone.

I don't know if Spain is any more or less important than Canada in the grand scheme of things, yet Madrid suffered such attacks.

I never said we should treat these groups as harmless crack pots like we did in the past. However, we should treat them no differently that the people who burn down apartment buildings with grow ops and drug labs.

I think you are mistaken to believe this is simply a criminal problem for the police.

We're getting way off topic here, but I object to the concept of the government "granting" rights. A right is a right because the government has done nothing to curtail it. Until recent decades, homosexual relationships were banned by law (the rights of homosexuals to pursue relationships were curtailed). Furthermore, the rights of gays to have their marriages recognized in law were curtailed by the government's standing defintion (based on the traditional definition) of what constituted a legal marriage.

I don't think we're off topic at all in joining these terrorist attacks and same-sex marriage. Go back to the quote of Tony Blair. The West is being targetted specifically for being the West. It is fine to pretend that same-sex marriage does not concern other citizens, but it does. The argument in favour of same-sex marriage largely rests on a principle of individual choice. I am surprised that some proponents of same-sex marriage brand other Canadians as "bigots" simply because they wanted to reserve the meaning of the word "marriage", yet they criticize Bush and Blair for defending the basic principle of freedom against a much graver threat.

It is also fine to hide behind the idea that Canada is irrelevant, or we have done nothing to provoke these people. I find such arguments both naive and deplorable. This post is coming from a hotspot at a Swiss airport, such is the modern world.

One can argue about Bush's and Blair's specific response but frankly, all the other suggestions I have seen would be worse. Now is not the time to be an 80% ally.

[Argus]

GostHacked:

One difference is that Canada has tried to stay out of trying to tell everyone else how to live.

It is pleasant to stand on the sidelines and watch. But how do you understand our Parliament's decision to pass same-sex marriage legislation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Simple thing called equal rights. We are all equal

Nonsense

[Riverwind]

I never said we should treat these groups as harmless crack pots like we did in the past. However, we should treat them no differently that the people who burn down apartment buildings with grow ops and drug labs.

I think you are mistaken to believe this is simply a criminal problem for the police.

Why? Who benefits by elevating the terrorist problem to the moral equivalent of fighting Nazi Germany? Only the terrorists themselves and chest thumping politicians who wrap themselves in their country's flag and feed off the fear of the public like a bunch of vampires.

The British spent many years fighting IRA terrorism. They did not see the need to create a 'war' to fight the IRA. They treated it as largely a police matter and at the same time worked to resolve the situation in North Ireland that was being used as an excuse by for the actions by the IRA. If the Brits used Bush's logic they would have invaded Ireland because it was a 'haven' for terrorists.

[Black Dog]

Should Torontonians worry because Canada just passed same-sex marriage legislation? Will some people abroad view this as a provocation? Or should we not worry because what Canada does is thankfully ignored on the world stage, and Canadians never provoke anybody. Is our parliament's decision to pass same-sex marriage legislation in any way connected to potential future attacks?

No.

Actually, let me rephrase that. Its entirely possible that canada's expansion of marriage rights to include same sex couple scould lead to violence and perhaps terrorism. Except it won't be perpatrated by our own Emmanuel Goldstein in Tora Bora, but by homegrown religious extremists.

It's called leadership. I understand why you wouldn't understand or recognize it since we haven't seen any in Canada in decades. But what Bush was doing was inspiring his people and giving his soldiers a reason to go and fight and risk their lives and die for their nation.

The best leadership Al Qaeda could ask for.

...

As an aside, I noticed that on the list of the top places in the world for quality of life, cities in the "irrelevant" countries seem to continually score the highest, while powerhouse nations like Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway consistently rank near the top of the scale, all the while managing to avoid Al Qaeda's tender mercies. What are these nations doing?

[kimmy]

Obviously the US military is better suited to rounding up criminals in that kind of environment. Bush could have done what needed to be done in Afghanistan without all of the rhetoric about the 'war of terrorism'. Al Qaeda feeds on that rhetoric just like Homolka feeds on the media frenzy surrounding her.

But was it the rhetoric that Al-Qaeda fed off of, or was it the US-led coalition invasion of Afghanistan? I argue that it's the latter. I believe that whether Bush had called it a "war on terrorism" or a humanitarian relief operation, the interpretation would have been the same amongst the hard-line Islamists and those sympathetic to their cause.

Consider that the Australian-led intervention in East Timor was interpreted by most of the civilized world as the right thing to do, long overdue, action against a humanitarian crisis. But for bin-Laden and friends, the interpretation was quite different. To them, it was a crime against Islam; Christian crusaders invading the sovereign Muslim nation of Indonesia. Al-Qaeda responded to Australia's intervention in East Timor with the slaughter of dozens of Australians, as well as other western tourists, in Bali.

Should Torontonians worry because Canada just passed same-sex marriage legislation? Will some people abroad view this as a provocation? Or should we not worry because what Canada does is thankfully ignored on the world stage, and Canadians never provoke anybody. Is our parliament's decision to pass same-sex marriage legislation in any way connected to potential future attacks?

Could gay marriage be viewed by some fanatics as a provocation? Well, sure. El-Sayyid Nosair, one of the participants in the 1993 WTC bombing, was also linked to a 1990 bombing at a Greenwich Village gay bar that killed 3 people.

The problem with believing that these fanatics behave in a rational, predictable, cause-effect sort of way is that we can't actually *know* what they will interpret as a provocation... our interpretation of treating them fairly and staying out of their business might not coincide with *their* interpretation of fairly. We're not the ones who decide what's a trespass against them. They decide when they've been trespassed against. And, being fanatics and all, their interpretation is not necessarily going to be reasonable or logical.

-k

[Argus]

It's called leadership. I understand why you wouldn't understand or recognize it since we haven't seen any in Canada in decades. But what Bush was doing was inspiring his people and giving his soldiers a reason to go and fight and risk their lives and die for their nation.

The best leadership Al Qaeda could ask for.

Hmm, Al Quaeda had a base with 10,000 fighters, an international network, almost open support by any number of Saudi billionaires... Now Bin Laden lives in a cave, most of the leadership is dead, most of his people are dead, in jail or scattered. Yeah, they done real good!

As an aside, I noticed that on the list of the top places in the world for quality of life, cities in the "irrelevant" countries seem to continually score the highest, while powerhouse nations like Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway consistently rank near the top of the scale, all the while managing to avoid Al Qaeda's tender mercies. What are these nations doing?

Like us, basking in the safety of American protection. Letting the Americans do the dirty work they don't have the stomach for. Sitting back and doing nothing knowing the Americans will fight for them.

[Black Dog]

Hmm, Al Quaeda had a base with 10,000 fighters, an international network, almost open support by any number of Saudi billionaires... Now Bin Laden lives in a cave, most of the leadership is dead, most of his people are dead, in jail or scattered. Yeah, they done real good

Hmm, as oppossed to now when Al Qaeda has a new base (Iraq) with an unknown number of fighters, an international network capable of striking at the heart of the "infidels'" nations (if yesterday's London attacks are indeed the work of AQ or AQ afiliates), a series of networks capable of operating without central leadership, a vast pool of new recruits to draw from, while Osama bin Laden remains at large, his whereabouts unknown.

If that's what you call success and good leadership, I'd really hate to see what you consider a failure.

Like us, basking in the safety of American protection. Letting the Americans do the dirty work they don't have the stomach for. Sitting back and doing nothing knowing the Americans will fight for them.

Bzzt! Wrong!

Here's a hint: bin Laden himself has repeatedly claimed that his war with the United States and the West is based on what they have done and are doing in the Muslim world – and not by the mere existence of their societies and freedoms. By extension, then, the less a country is seen to be involved in what is preceieved as the wests war on Islam, the less likely they are to be targets.

[BHS]

The British spent many years fighting IRA terrorism. They did not see the need to create a 'war' to fight the IRA. They treated it as largely a police matter and at the same time worked to resolve the situation in North Ireland that was being used as an excuse by for the actions by the IRA. If the Brits used Bush's logic they would have invaded Ireland because it was a 'haven' for terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you ever seen what "policing" amounts to in Northern Ireland? It's hardly different than how the Israelis go into the Palestinian regions. Furthermore, the British didn't need to "invade" Northern Ireland because they've owned the place since the 1600s. And your conjecture that they "worked" to resolve the problem during the worst years of the troubles is laughable - between 1972 and 1999 tthe people of NI were governed directly from London and had little say in how the conflict could be dispelled. Hardly like a war at all, eh?

[Riverwind]

Furthermore, the British didn't need to "invade" Northern Ireland because they've owned the place since the 1600s.

I said invade 'Ireland' not 'Northern Ireland'.

And your conjecture that they "worked" to resolve the problem during the worst years of the troubles is laughable - between 1972 and 1999 tthe people of NI were governed directly from London and had little say in how the conflict could be dispelled. Hardly like a war at all, eh?

So they did not try to resolve the problem 1999 and the IRA problem started to disappear at the same time. Seems to me that one is connected to the other.

[BHS]

Hmm, as oppossed to now when Al Qaeda has a new base (Iraq) with an unknown number of fighters, an international network capable of striking at the heart of the "infidels'" nations (if yesterday's London attacks are indeed the work of AQ or AQ afiliates), a series of networks capable of operating without central leadership, a vast pool of new recruits to draw from, while Osama bin Laden remains at large, his whereabouts unknown.

If that's what you call success and good leadership, I'd really hate to see what you consider a failure.

* * *

Bzzt! Wrong!

Here's a hint: bin Laden himself has repeatedly claimed that his war with the United States and the West is based on what they have done and are doing in the Muslim world – and not by the mere existence of their societies and freedoms. By extension, then, the less a country is seen to be involved in what is preceieved as the wests war on Islam, the less likely they are to be targets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Failure looks something like the WTC crumbing into lower Manhattan, after years of lesser attacks (including the 1993 attack on the WTC) were ignored.

Bin Laden has also claimed, repeatedly, that it is our way of life and our failure to live up to Sharia standards that fuels his jihad. So what's your point again?

[GostHacked]

Like us, basking in the safety of American protection. Letting the Americans do the dirty work they don't have the stomach for. Sitting back and doing nothing knowing the Americans will fight for them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes the US is providing us protection by making themselves the bigger target.

The only protection I see is that the US is stealing the limelight on this matter. Making themselved the target. The US can protect itself, leave the security of Canada, well to Canada. You don't hear Martin screaming out BRING IT ON !!! That will just invite more problems.

When Bush talks, people listen to his crew's rhetoric and get angry with him. This is the protection you are talkin about. Him blabbing away about how they will clean house and make it all better. No other leader on the planet speaks like this. Not even Kim Jong Il.

So when back to the main topic. Supporting gay rights will NOT lead to a terrorist attack on us. Well not from foreign terrorists. It will be a local dispute and be handled by local authorities.

[BHS]

I said invade 'Ireland' not 'Northern Ireland'.

Since when has the Republic of Ireland been involved in terrorism?

So they did not try to resolve the problem 1999 and the IRA problem started to disappear at the same time. Seems to me that one is connected to the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said, they didn't do anything more constructive than sending in the tanks, to resolve the issues in Northern Ireland during the worst of the troubles, between the years of 1972 and 1999. In 1999, after the signing of the Good Friday accord, the IRA and the UDF and all of the other yahoos agreed to lay down arms in exchange for being allowed to participate in local government. The Good Friday Accord of 1998 was the resolution that was needed, not the "policing" and governing from a distance that had gone on before. Give it a minute to to let it sink in, before you hit the reply button.

[BHS]

Like us, basking in the safety of American protection. Letting the Americans do the dirty work they don't have the stomach for. Sitting back and doing nothing knowing the Americans will fight for them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes the US is providing us protection by making themselves the bigger target.

The only protection I see is that the US is stealing the limelight on this matter. Making themselved the target. The US can protect itself, leave the security of Canada, well to Canada. You don't hear Martin screaming out BRING IT ON !!! That will just invite more problems.

When Bush talks, people listen to his crew's rhetoric and get angry with him. This is the protection you are talkin about. Him blabbing away about how they will clean house and make it all better. No other leader on the planet speaks like this. Not even Kim Jong Il.

So when back to the main topic. Supporting gay rights will NOT lead to a terrorist attack on us. Well not from foreign terrorists. It will be a local dispute and be handled by local authorities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose you'll only be happy when the monsters of this world are all treated with kid gloves and appeasement. Too fucking bad. The lessons of WWII have been learned. Ignoring the terrorists won't make them go away. It didn't work in 1993.