Seriuosly folks,Anne McLellan

[Bro]

She is a very scary person to have as much power as she does.Even on talk radio ,the most staunch liberals were trying to distance her from the liberal party today.It kind of made my day.The only problem,most liberals ,those that are on the hill, will support her,something to do with the party whip or something like that.

Hopefully,this will mean less public support for a party that continually sits on the fence,that is until the whiff of votes tells them which direction to go,whether that is from the some 36,000 deported immigrants they can't account for,or whatever injust group gives them money,or,well, the list goes on.

[kimmy]

Can you provide any details of what you're referring to?

Does Anne McLellan have too much power? I've always kind of had the impression that Deputy PM was one of the crappiest jobs in Cabinet, but I honestly don't know. Does the Deputy PM do anything other than serve as a human shield for the Prime Minister?

From the reference to unaccounted-for deportees, I gather it's Annie's role as Minister of Public Safety and Preparedness that you're concerned over. And frankly I doubt there is anybody in government who is particularly qualified for that role. The posting needs a minister who is prepared to delegate, listen to experts, put ego aside, put functionality ahead of style (ie, be bland and efficient) and be ready to absorb public abuse. These are all qualities that I think Anne McLellan has, moreso than most of her cabinet colleagues.

-k

[mirror]

I doubt there is anybody in government who is particularly qualified for that role.

Who do you suggest be given that role and why do you feel it is so important?

Having said that, the only reason AM is DPM is because she is one of two Liberals elected in Alberta, and Kilgor has proven himself to be a loose canon at least as far as the Liberals are concerned..

[kimmy]

I doubt there is anybody in government who is particularly qualified for that role.

Who do you suggest be given that role and why do you feel it is so important?

Allow me to clarify: when I said I doubt anybody in government is very qualified for that role, I mean that I honestly don't think that any of our elected officials in Ottawa are experts in security or terrorism-prevention or emergency services coordination.

However, we do (I hope) have people in CSIS and the RCMP and the Canadian Forces who are experts in those areas.

I think that the role of the minister is to be a capable organizer and lobbyist and facilitator, to listen to the real experts, find out what they need, and give them the tools and resources to do their jobs. And I do think that Anne McLellan is as good at that as any MP in Ottawa.

Why do I think it's important? Because if we have an emergency, whether it's a terrorist attack or a natural disaster or man-made disaster of some kind, peoples' lives depend on an efficient and coordinated response.

-k

[cybercoma]

She is a very scary person to have as much power as she does.Even on talk radio ,the most staunch liberals were trying to distance her from the liberal party today.It kind of made my day.The only problem,most liberals ,those that are on the hill, will support her,something to do with the party whip or something like that.

Hopefully,this will mean less public support for a party that continually sits on the fence,that is until the whiff of votes tells them which direction to go,whether that is from the some 36,000 deported immigrants they can't account for,or whatever injust group gives them money,or,well, the list goes on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank God Anne McLellan is the only person willing to talk about the realities of terrorism today, meanwhile everyone else has their nose in the air pretending it could never happen to us. It's just a shame we have the smallest military in NATO (save Iceland and Luxemborg). When we are attacked, we'll be able to do nothing but write angry letters to Osama demanding his resignation.

[mirror]

I am not worried about Canada being attacked and I don't want any more money wasted on security. We already spend too much on that..

Seriously folks, who is going to attack Canada and why would Canada be attacked?

[Black Dog]

cybercoma Posted Today, 09:24 AM

Thank God Anne McLellan is the only person willing to talk about the realities of terrorism today, meanwhile everyone else has their nose in the air pretending it could never happen to us. It's just a shame we have the smallest military in NATO (save Iceland and Luxemborg). When we are attacked, we'll be able to do nothing but write angry letters to Osama demanding his resignation.

I am not worried about Canada being attacked and I don't want any more money wasted on security. We already spend too much on that..

Who is going to attack Canada and why would Canada be attacked?

This is a serious question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A distinction needs to be made on spending for security (that's bordersecurity, screening for transportation etc etc.) and military spending. The former is valuable and necessary for preventing terrorism. The latter has little or no appreciable affect. If anything, Canada's military commitments make us more of a target for terrorism than Iceland or Luxembourg.

To sum up, security good, military spending not so much.

[mirror]

It appears that the people who did the recent London bombings are British nationals. In other words these criminals may be living amongst us? How is border security or transportation security going to protect us from Canadian citizens?

The pluck deficit

And the reply:

We have a winner!

[I miss Reagan]

I find this recent concern for security quite amusing. The usual suspects are now calling for beefed up security and admonishing us to be ready. The same people who claimed "no one would ever want to harm Canada". I thought we were safe because we didn't go to Iraq? I thought we were safe because we hate Americans? Funny these people paid little attention to what CSIS has been saying for years, that we are a vulnerable target. Meanwhile a good percentage of Canadians feel the US and Brits deserved the attacks.

[mirror]

Meanwhile a good percentage of Canadians feel the US and Brits deserved the attacks.

I believe that is a distortion of what at least some Canadians believe.

Some Canadians ( I don't know how high the percentage is), believe that UK & US foreign policies and actions lead to these kind of reprisals. And of course they do.

Perhaps CSIS would be more effective if their staff were more representative of the people who are presently living in Canada. Same for the local police forces.

Perhaps it hasn't clued in yet to people in general, but Britain was attacked from within, not from an outside group, but by British nationals.

[Black Dog]

I find this recent concern for security quite amusing. The usual suspects are now calling for beefed up security and admonishing us to be ready. The same people who claimed "no one would ever want to harm Canada". I thought we were safe because we didn't go to Iraq? I thought we were safe because we hate Americans? Funny these people paid little attention to what CSIS has been saying for years, that we are a vulnerable target. Meanwhile a good percentage of Canadians feel the US and Brits deserved the attacks.

So many misconceptions to clear up. Personally: I'm not advocating increasing security any more than necessary. I doubt Canada is high up on the list of targets, but it doesn't hurt to have a plan. That's certainly not the same thing as saying "we need to build up a big military so that if we get attacked we can beat up on some brown folks!"

Is Cananda a target: sure. Does our close relationship with the US (including our involvement in Afghanistan) make us more likely targets? Certainly.

As for people thinking the US and Londoners "deserved" the attacks, that's just pure, unadulterated horseshit. There's a world of difference between understanding the reasoning or motivations behind the attacks and endorsing them. It's too bad that clear distinction is so tough for some to grasp.

[mirror]

If you think we have problems now in our multicultural societies read this and weep:

British bombers: Worst fears true

Times are a changing.

[I miss Reagan]

I doubt Canada is high up on the list of targets, but it doesn't hurt to have a plan.

Oh ya I forgot, "there is no terrorist threat" "Al Quida, is a boogey man".

As for people thinking the US and Londoners "deserved" the attacks, that's just pure, unadulterated horseshit.

You may not think they deserved it, but many Canadians do. See: "Some Canadians ( I don't know how high the percentage is), believe that UK & US foreign policies and actions lead to these kind of reprisals. And of course they do."

Basically a euphamism for "They deserved it!".

There's a world of difference between understanding the reasoning or motivations behind the attacks and endorsing them. It's too bad that clear distinction is so tough for some to grasp.

Talk about horsecrap. What's difficult for me to understand is you radical Islam apologists constantly preach understanding for terrorists yet you are completely intolerant of the US's point of view. You hate the right so bad you'd rather equivocate about the definition of terrorism and stigmatize the victims.

[I miss Reagan]

If you think we have problems now in our multicultural societies read this and weep:

British bombers: Worst fears true

Times are a changing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a look into the future. Could it be any more obvious that you're going to have problems when you create a society where that society's rules and customs come second to the incomming cultures. People need to clue in, there's a reason why they're moving here... because they're societies aren't working out so well. Then when you add to that a Canadian agenda of encouraging immigration from traditionally anti-American countries and people who oppress women or kill members of their families who "dishonor" them. The cultural mosaic idea was destined to fail from the beginning. Melting pot is the only way.

[mcqueen625]

I am not worried about Canada being attacked and I don't want any more money wasted on security. We already spend too much on that..

Seriously folks, who is going to attack Canada and why would Canada be attacked?

Are you really that dumb to think that somehow Canada is immune to being attacked by radical terrorists, especially islamic radicals. These people have referred to all of Western society as infidals, and calls for their elimination. Do you really think that these people can tell the difference between American, Canadian or British citizens? THey don't, nor could they care less. Canada was named by El Quida as a target country, so we shouldn't be sitting smuggly by and thinking that this can't happen here.

[Black Dog]

Oh ya I forgot, "there is no terrorist threat" "Al Quida, is a boogey man

Al Qaeda can be a "boogeyman" as I have said in the past, and still be a threat. Anyway, there's no indication the real Al Qaeda actually carried out the attacks in London.

You may not think they deserved it, but many Canadians do. See: "Some Canadians ( I don't know how high the percentage is), believe that UK & US foreign policies and actions lead to these kind of reprisals. And of course they do."

Basically a euphamism for "They deserved it!".

That's how one could interpret that...if one was a moron with no understanding of the difference between understanding the flow of cause and effect and making a judgment on the victims.

If you walk in front of a bus, saying "he didn't look both ways before he crossed and then got hit" is a far cry from saying "that moron had it coming". It's not a hard concept to grasp.

What's difficult for me to understand is you radical Islam apologists constantly preach understanding for terrorists yet you are completely intolerant of the US's point of view. You hate the right so bad you'd rather equivocate about the definition of terrorism and stigmatize the victims.

Blah blah blah blah. Get back to me when you can back up any of your ridiculous, half-baked claims that I (1) am an "apologist" for "radical Islam" and (2) have "stigmatized" the victims..

As for equivocating about the definition of terror, I was pretty clear: terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. Nothing in that definition precludes the use of terrorist tactics by state or state agents. You would limit the definition of terror to, as I said before, what "they " do to "us" and never the inverse: you are the very picture of moral relativism.

[I miss Reagan]

Al Qaeda can be a "boogeyman" as I have said in the past, and still be a threat. Anyway, there's no indication the real Al Qaeda actually carried out the attacks in London.

I think it's pretty obvious this was the work of Al Qaida. Just because OBL might not have issued a direct order doesn't mean it isn't Al Qaida. Al Quida has had training camps for years and has trained thousands from around the globe. These guys then preach their poison to potential recruits. Al Quida is like the ELF, it's a movement.

Blah blah blah blah. Get back to me when you can back up any of your ridiculous, half-baked claims that I (1) am an "apologist" for "radical Islam" and (2) have "stigmatized" the victims..

You are an apologist. You remind me of the Muslim barber who said to me "ya Osama is a bad guy, BUT (there's always the 'but') the US pushed him to do it.

You are constantly ranting about US foreign policy being the cause.

If you walk in front of a bus, saying "he didn't look both ways before he crossed and then got hit" is a far cry from saying "that moron had it coming". It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Since we're doing the analogy thing I guess following your use of the "cause and effect" logic, Homolka and Bernardo victims school girl clothing was the cause of the effect. We just need to have more understanding towards people like Homolka and Bernardo eh?

[Black Dog]

I think it's pretty obvious this was the work of Al Qaida. Just because OBL might not have issued a direct order doesn't mean it isn't Al Qaida. Al Quida has had training camps for years and has trained thousands from around the globe. These guys then preach their poison to potential recruits. Al Quida is like the ELF, it's a movement.

Yeah a movement with no set membership, leadership or central authority. In other words "Al Qaeda" is an idealogical construct, not a true organization.

You are an apologist. You remind me of the Muslim barber who said to me "ya Osama is a bad guy, BUT (there's always the 'but') the US pushed him to do it.

You are constantly ranting about US foreign policy being the cause.

By your logic, then, anyone who try to understand why terrorism happens is an apologist. You're still wrong as hell. An apologist is a person who argues in defense or justification of something. I have always been clear in condemning acts of terror while seeking to explain them.

Since we're doing the analogy thing I guess following your use of the "cause and effect" logic, Homolka and Bernardo victims school girl clothing was the cause of the effect. We just need to have more understanding towards people like Homolka and Bernardo eh

If you're going to argue from analogy, it usually helps to use a situation that's even remotely analagous. Yours is straight up victim blaming. No one has blamed the victims of London or NYC or any other terrorist act as being responsible for their own fate, but rather looked at how the policies of national governments influence ideaologie sthat use terrorism as a weapon. Clearly, this basic concept is beyond your ken, so I don't see the point in discussing it any further.

[Bro]

Can you provide any details of what you're referring to?

Does Anne McLellan have too much power? I've always kind of had the impression that Deputy PM was one of the crappiest jobs in Cabinet, but I honestly don't know. Does the Deputy PM do anything other than serve as a human shield for the Prime Minister?

If something were to happen to pm the pm,then she would become am the pm.

Besides that,most Canadians don't listen to our politicians,but other countries leaders do,and she certainly walks and talks the liberal party nonsense ,which has not helped us on the world stage at all.Her big concerns,like her party,are for every whiner or group of whiners,or terrorists for that matter,but for the average taxpaying Canadian,we are to shut up,pay our taxes and they will with our money run our country even further into the ground.A very rosy picture indeed for Canada.

[I miss Reagan]

By your logic, then, anyone who try to understand why terrorism happens is an apologist.

No not at all. I completely understand the difference between gaining an understanding and being an apologist. The problem is anytime a terrorist attack occurs you justify it by turning the topic to US foreign policy or the motivations behind the attack. It's not like we're talking about you starting topics in the morality/ religion section of the board on why Islamic Fundamentalism exists. We're talking about your justification of Islamic terrorism.

If you're going to argue from analogy, it usually helps to use a situation that's even remotely analagous.

And your bus analogy is so much more relevant.

I think the Bernardo analogy fits quite well. An individual displaying sociopathological tendencies who feels justified in inflicting pain on others because of selfish desires and justifies his acts by blaming the victims.

Clearly, this basic concept is beyond your ken, so I don't see the point in discussing it any further.

Oh Black Dog, you're so beyond my capacity to understand all of these difficult concepts. Is this why you resort to name calling like "moron" and say "bull/ horseshit" every time you're losing a debate?

[mirror]

IMR

I don't appreciate that you would take a quote of mine like the one below and interpret it to create an impression that I am suggesting something such as "They deserved it!", which is so far from the truth, or so distant from what I said, as possible. My goodness these were innocent people, civilians going to work at rush hour, just like those equally important innocent children being killed on the streets of Bagdad every day. Who in their right mind would make such a statement?

"Some Canadians ( I don't know how high the percentage is), believe that UK & US foreign policies and actions lead to these kind of reprisals. And of course they do."

Basically a euphamism for "They deserved it!".

Let's make a deal: you say and interpret what you have to say for you, and I will say and interpret what I have to say for me.

Now I know it is rather complicated, and very difficult to grasp for some people, so I am going to repeat what I said very slowly.

Some Canadians, probably 60-70%, I just don't know the percentage, believe that

you reap what you sow in foreign affairs.

Just like farming - you reap what you sow, putting aside natural complications like

the weather, etc.

So if the UK and the US are dropping bombs in Iraq, then someone with some

kind of connection to Iraq, whether it be same culture, same language, same

religion, same geography, or same belief system, is going to try and retaliate,

and I believe that is what happened last week in London.

Did the civilians in London deserve that?

OF COURSE NOT.

Do the children in Iraq deserve to be bombed?

OF COURSE NOT.

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

[Argus]

Meanwhile a good percentage of Canadians feel the US and Brits deserved the attacks.

I believe that is a distortion of what at least some Canadians believe.

Some Canadians ( I don't know how high the percentage is), believe that UK & US foreign policies and actions lead to these kind of reprisals. And of course they do.

In order to suggest that their foreign policies were responsible for the attacks you have to accept that the bombings were a reasonable, or logical or understandable reaction to some aspect of those foreign policies. I don't see it that way. I don't see putting bombs in subway cars as a reasonable reaction to anything at all.

The people involved were, apparently, Muslims of Pakistani origin who grew up in Britain. They were apparently treated well by their new homeland, were given every right and opportunity, and had the chance to protest, to organize against, and to vote against any kind of governmental policy with which they disagreed.

Instead they murdered innocent people.

I put it to you that this cannot be seen as any kind of logical response to any aspect of Britain's foreign policy. And if there is no logical motivation how can you assess the responsibility of foreign policy? It's like blaming the Beatles because Charley Manson took one of their songs as a clue to engage in mass murder, or blaming the creators of the movie "Taxi Driver" for some lunatic shooting Reagan.

There were several long articles in the Citizen today, probably in the other Asper papers too, on Britain's Islamic lunatic fringe. You might find it interesting reading given the ferocious support of mass violence against London displayed by some "British" nationals who ar Muslims. Some were quoted more than a year ago calling for terrorist attacks on London, and told reporters how they would welcome such an attack, how they would be willing to take part in one, how they would make their homes safe homes for terrorists. One said that even if his own children were killed in such an attack he would be overjoyed.

Again, I put it to you that these individuals are not behaving in any kind of logical or coherent fashion. You might almost call them insane. And you can't design foreign policy around the angry, murderous rage of insane people.

Perhaps CSIS would be more effective if their staff were more representative of the people who are presently living in Canada. Same for the local police forces.

Oh yes, that's worked so well with our refugee and immigration system. We have people in place there who are more sympathetic to the aspirations of people of their "home" countries than they are for the welfare of this one. I don't thin I want CSIS agents with such divided loyalties. In any event, CSIS isn't the problem. A weak-kneed government is the problem. CSIS has warned for years that there are terrorists here, yes, and spies, and the government chooses to ignore them because they don't see any political advantage or money in doing anything about it.

Perhaps it hasn't clued in yet to people in general, but Britain was attacked from within, not from an outside group, but by British nationals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Britain was attacked by Muslims, who, by every indication, were never British to begin with, regardless of what little piece of papers they had.

[Argus]

As for people thinking the US and Londoners "deserved" the attacks, that's just pure, unadulterated horseshit. There's a world of difference between understanding the reasoning or motivations behind the attacks and endorsing them. It's too bad that clear distinction is so tough for some to grasp.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe there are a number of people in Canada who not only feel the US deserved 911 but are heartily glad it happened and wish it would happen again.

Some of them, perhaps, on this web site.

[Argus]

you reap what you sow in foreign affairs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You do? So if you are good and kind then no one will ever harm or hurt you?

Even people who are unreasonable and illogical? Even people who are, in some ways, insane?

[mirror]

I did not say that the London suicide bombers are heroes, but violence begets violence.

The connection between those London bombs last week and the UK's behaviour in Iraq is quite clear.

Britain has now paid a price for invading and dropping their bombs in Iraq.