Will Canada be Attacked by Terrorists?

[RedRagTop]

By this, of course, I mean in a big way similar to the USA/Spain/British events.

[invinceablevett]

Why not?.If these sick people can attack Usa/Spain/Britain why would Canada be different?
They will find a reason to cowardly attack anyone.
My original idea of carpet bombing still looks like the best solution.

[KOPBET]

"Canada Designated by al-Qaeda to be Top-5 Target (April 2004) U.S. researchers have issued a frightening warning for Canada. An online Arabic manual for the al-Qaeda terrorist network, called al-Battar Military Camp (http://www.middleeastinfo.org/article3820.html), now explicitly supports assaults on Canadians. It says Canada is the fifth most important "Christian Terrorist" target, coming after Americans, Britons, Spaniards and Australians. The disturbing guide encourages attacks on businessmen, politicians, scientists, soldiers and tourists. The 'al-Battar' publication first appeared in January 2004 and has produced several issues. It has been described as a How-To manual for islamic terrorists. Bin Laden himself has explicitly threatened Canada on at least two occasions in the past eighteen months. Of the countries that Bin Laden has personally ever singled out, only two have yet to be attacked - Canada, and Jordan. Security experts believe that Bin Laden intends to make good on those threats."

"Ottawa Targeted in Plot Linked to al-Qaeda (February 2004) According to a U.S. Library of Congress report completed in July of 2003, South American-based terrorists linked to the Al-Qaeda group allegedly plotted an attack on Jewish targets in Ottawa in 1999 to undermine Middle East peace talks. The plan to launch assaults on various unnamed landmarks in the Canadian capital, as well as in cities in Argentina and Paraguay, was thwarted by police and intelligence authorities. Few details about the plot have been released, but the roundup of suspects apparently took place just a week after the arrest in Washington state of Ahmed Ressam who had planned to blow up much of Los Angeles International Airport."

"Canadian Family Proud of Their Terrorist Links (March 2004) A Canadian family that has long denied ties to al-Qaeda now admits that they are not only terrorists, but believe it's noble for them to die for the cause. Abdurahman Khadr admitted to CBC-TV's The National this month that some of his brothers and his father fought as al-Qaeda terrorists and that they even stayed with Osama bin Laden. And his mother and sister, interviewed in Pakistan, said they were proud of their family's connection to the terrorists behind the September 2001 attacks. The patriarch, 57-year-old Ahmed Said Khadr, who was born in Egypt but became a Canadian citizen, was killed fighting Pakistani forces in October. One of his sons, 14-year-old Karim, was wounded in the battle and is in a military hospital in Rawalpindi, paralysed from the waist down. Another son, Omar, was captured by U.S. forces after an attack in Afghanistan and is being held at the American jail in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Abdurahman Khadr, who was released from the U.S. jail and eventually returned to Toronto last year, says he wants to be a peaceful Muslim. The rest of the family is expected to return to Canada to seek tax-payer funded medical care for Karim"


more . . .
http://www.lifesafety.ca/documents/ls0009.htm

[RedRagTop]

Why not?.If these sick people can attack Usa/Spain/Britain why would Canada be different?
They will find a reason to cowardly attack anyone.
My original idea of carpet bombing still looks like the best solution.

Then why would Switzerland or Norway be different? Do we really believe that all countries on the planet are intended targets?

Good points from KOPBET, but realistic precursors to a large scale attack?

[vette-dude]

Just a matter of time.

Randy

[Florida Guy]

The question is not will they, it is when.

[KOPBET]

:lou I'll bet 67HEAVEN's neighbors already think they are terrorized . . . :W


(that's a joke Bob . . .) :)

[Grizzly]

Any nation that has a long coastline is an easy target. Let's face it, these people don't want to work to build anything or they would be in their own countries expending all this time, effort, and money.

[RedRagTop]

Any nation that has a long coastline is an easy target. Let's face it, these people don't want to work to build anything or they would be in their own countries expending all this time, effort, and money.

I wonder that an "easy" target (long coastline) would be sufficient reason. Is the ultimate goal to kill everyone on the planet who isn't a Muslim?
Or is it all more complex than that...

[Grizzly]

I wonder that an "easy" target (long coastline) would be sufficient reason. Is the ultimate goal to kill everyone on the planet who isn't a Muslim?
Or is it all more complex than that...

One would hope it is more complex than that, but they really don't seem to care who it is they kill. How many of their own have they killed in Iraq?

Having lived along the coast at one time I can think of places you could easily bring a lot of men and equipment ashore. The Chuck Norris movie "Invasion USA" was not quite as far fetched as it sounded.

I think the most frightening thing is the in the last few years almost all of these attacks have been not for profit, ie blackmail, and they have been associated with one religious (??) group who wish to confirm their entrance to their heaven by killing "Infidels."

They like to and will continue to kill and there is not much that can be done about it. The sad part is that all people of middle eastern decent will be suspect. Worst case is that borders will be closed and non-citizens will be deported. Ask people who know someone who was beheaded what they think about that.

The alternative is to let them go their own way, develop nuclear weapons and then send a boomer over there and turn that part of the world into a sheet of glass. I would hope that they are not so stupid as to think we would not do it.

[RedRagTop]

I don't have any problem investing some of my tax bucks into a program to round up and deport illegals and those of questionable motives here in Canada. Too much opportunity here to hide these "sleeper cells", and at some point common sense will override political correctness.
I still have my doubts as to whether an attack will actually take place here...

[Grizzly]

I still have my doubts as to whether an attack will actually take place here...[/QUOTE]

I sincerely hope you are correct.....................

[Patrick]

I still have my doubts as to whether an attack will actually take place here...

RRT,
Canada is engaged in a policy of appeasement toward Radical Muslim Terrorists. And in the words of Winston Churchill, "Appeasement is the act of feeding the giant crocodile, in the hopes that it eats you last."

Mind the crocodile.

-Patrick

[Mac]

Canada is engaged in a policy of appeasement toward Radical Muslim Terrorists.
Sorry, Patrick... you are mistaken.

Canada was there in Afghanistan from the very beginning and we're still in Afghanistan, covering your collective backs. If we weren't, it's quite likely Dubya wouldn't be in Iraq, cleaning up the mess his father after his dad. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t have a problem with Dubya kicking Saddam where it hurts BUT I do have a problem with folks forgetting that the Canadian Armed Forces are engaged in this war too.

Unfortunately, it sounds like you've succumb to Dubya's siren song of "Yer wit'us or agin'us!" if you truly believe Canada isn't committed to the war on terrorism.

Sheep and lemmings follow blindly; countries should make better choices.

-Mac

[RedRagTop]

Agreed. The US guys couldn't believe it when that Canadian sniper made that 1700 yard shot in Afganistan. Canadian soldiers are revered through history as the grunts to get the job done.
That statement by Dubya aboot "with us or against us" is likely the most irresponsible, poorly thought out proclamation heard in modern times...

[Patrick]

Sorry, Patrick... you are mistaken.

Canada was there in Afghanistan from the very beginning and we're still in Afghanistan, covering your collective backs. If we weren't, it's quite likely Dubya wouldn't be in Iraq, cleaning up the mess his father after his dad. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t have a problem with Dubya kicking Saddam where it hurts BUT I do have a problem with folks forgetting that the Canadian Armed Forces are engaged in this war too.

Unfortunately, it sounds like you've succumb to Dubya's siren song of "Yer wit'us or agin'us!" if you truly believe Canada isn't committed to the war on terrorism.

Sheep and lemmings follow blindly; countries should make better choices.

-Mac

Perhaps I need to clarify what I meant. I understand Canada was there in Afghanistan. I also understand Britain was there in Afghanistan and Iraq. They got attacked, though, and the reason they got attacked, as they are beginning to realize now, is that their open society has been entirely too tolerant of the sort of hate speech radical muslim fundamentalists have been allowed to speak in the streets of London. They have taken "appeasement" beyond what it should have been taken.

Has Canada done anything to reform it's very relaxed immigration (and, by extension, assylum) policies? The 9/11 terrorists may not have come across the boarder from Canada, but given the modifications the US has made on international flights and ports of entry, isn't it now more likely that islamic fascists with evil intent in their hearts are going to go to the next closest country?

Thus, I'm not talking about foriegn policy, or the "you're either with us or against us" philosophy. I'm talking about what goes on, internally, within your own borders. Admittedly, Canada has done a better job of integrating immigrants into it's society than Britain has, but Canada is certainly at risk if it doesn't make immigration and claiming assylum a bit more challenging.

That's what I was attempting to say. :)

-Patrick

[67HEAVEN]

Patrick,

Your clarification, I can agree with -- with one minor correction. :)

I understand Canada was there in Afghanistan.

Not was......IS. And we just sent more troops.

[Patrick]

Not was......IS. And we just sent more troops.


Correction noted. :)
And, I'll correct myself, too: England IS (not was) in Afghanistan and Iraq, too.

-Patrick

[67HEAVEN]

Sat. Jul. 16 2005 9:43 AM ET

Canada's JTF-2 to hunt al Qaeda in Afghanistan
CTV.ca News Staff

Canada's JTF-2 soldiers will be heading to Afghanistan to join the fight against "detestable murderers and scumbags," the country's top soldier told reporters during a luncheon Thursday.

Gen. Rick Hillier put a more urgent, aggressive face on the Canadian Forces in his briefing, saying they're focused more than ever in protecting Canadians' interests at home and abroad.

"We're not the public service of Canada," he said. "We're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."

Prime Minister Paul Martin, speaking to reporters in Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia Friday, defended Hillier's bold statements.

"General Hillier is not only a top soldier, but he's a soldier who has served in Afghanistan," Martin said.

"And the point that he is simply making is that, 'Look, we are at war with the terrorists, and we are not going to let them win.'"

It was the first time Hillier had confirmed that members of Joint Task Force 2 -- Canada's elite and secretive commando unit -- will be involved in combat missions against al Qaeda supporters and remnants of the former Taliban regime.

The terrorist bombings in London are proof that "we can't let up" in the fight against international terrorism, Hillier said.

The commandos will be part of about 2,000 Canadian soldiers who will be deployed in Kandahar by February in dangerous missions to hunt down militants.

In just over a week, 250 soldiers will be sent to Afghanistan's volatile Kandahar province. They'll be joined by Foreign Affairs officials, development workers and members of the RCMP, as part of what's being called a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT).

Afghan officials have warned that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network is planning attacks against soldiers in the region.

Last month, an American PRT in Kandahar was hit by a suicide bomber -- in the same area where Canada's team will be deployed. Four soldiers were injured in the attack.

Hillier said casualties are a reality of military life, "but there needs to be an awareness across Canada that we're in a dangerous business."
Despite the increased danger in Kandahar -- compared with the relatively safe haven of Kabul where Canada lost three soldiers in the line of duty -- the military plans to use the "same, exact strategy" in the PRT, said Hillier.

Canada will be taking "a three-block war" approach, where troops will focus on small pockets within communities to avoid getting involved in large conflicts.

"We're going to prosecute some operations there and we're going to go after the Taliban in some cases," Hillier said.

In Kabul, Canada's efforts to provide security while aiding reconstruction projects has been successful in their strategy of winning over the hearts and minds of some local residents.

But it remains to be seen whether Canadians will be welcome in Kandahar.
"We're going to take absolutely every step possible to set up conditions for success and a reduced risk," Hillier said.

"I believe we can put in place in Kandahar ... the best-equipped structure inside of Afghanistan."

"But we still can't reduce the risk to zero. It's still a high-risk area."

SOURCE - http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1121433777212_154/?hub=TopStories

===================================================

EDIT: to add link to JTF-2 http://www.ops.forces.gc.ca/units/jtf2/default_e.asp

[tomtom72]

That's an interesting question. I can't decide what choice would be best. No nation is safe, I think. Why some & not others is an answer only the terrorists know I think. Maybe it's divide & conquer?? Get us being jealous of those not attacked? Who knows what their game plan is in the short term? Maybe it's like the bully at school. You hope today he doesn't pick on you, tomorrow is another day & worry about that when it comes? I can only say that maybe those guys don't want to repeat the mistakes of agressors in the past, namely don't get the whole free world pi$$ed at you all at the same time?? Or at least not pi$$ed enough for every nation to actively be engaged in direct combat with the Islamo-fascists. Maybe they can't really taken us all on all at once like the Axis powers of WWII. Maybe they learned from history??

Tom

[BigMike5]

Didn't it already happen? No NHL at all last year. Had to be terrorists. :cool

[Mac]

You've raised a couple of interesting issues here, Patrick.

As I understand it, the First Amendment is all about freedom of speech and expression. Don't you find it hypocritical to be criticizing Canada for also having freedom of speech and expression? Canada actually has hate crime legislation which allows prosecution of those who counsel hatred (as much as I dislike and disagree with said legislation) but that's another subject altogether... How do you translate freedom of speech into appeasement?

As you know from my previous posts on the Edge, I don't care much for Canada's Immigration & Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and I disagree strongly with our Liberal government's lack of commitment in dealing with Immigration issues but although you rushed over it quickly, the simple fact is... the 9/11 terrorists entered the USA, took flight training there and did their acts of terror entirely within the USA. Pointing fingers at Canada after 9/11 is, again, hypocritical.

I'm guessing you're not talking "With us or against us" because there's really no way to defend such statements. Instead, you're focusing on matters of Canadian policy. Canada is far from perfect but, as 67's post indicates, the people "on the ground" are dedicated to stomping out terrorism. It's our idiot politicians who need to wake up and smell the coffee. For instance.... CLICK!! (http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=5a72eaa1-42fa-4a18-8e35-2164d864e940) Bill Graham is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I'm sure Carolyn Parrish's name is familiar... :(

Ms. Parrish fired off a letter to Mr. Graham 10 days ago about her concerns in Afghanistan, and was particularly critical of Canada's new chief of the defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, who she said should be "muzzled."

Speaking to reporters about the Canadian troop deployment to Kandahar, Gen. Hillier referred to terrorists as "murderers and scumbags" and made clear he believes the job of the Armed Forces is "to be able to kill people."

In the letter to Mr. Graham, Ms. Parrish wrote: "I implore you to muzzle the beast, assume command of Canada's agenda in your usual articulate, dignified and intelligent way. Let the Canadian public know Gen. Hillier does not speak for our government."
-Mac

[Patrick]

As I understand it, the First Amendment is all about freedom of speech and expression. Don't you find it hypocritical to be criticizing Canada for also having freedom of speech and expression?

Mac,
The four important words not included in any of the amendments to the Constitution are "...up to a point." Yes, Americans have freedom of expression, up to a point. Nothing is absolute, and we have (or, at least, are supposed to have) the Courts to determine where that line is. You cannot, for instance, run into a crowded theatre and yell "Fire." You cannot engage in slander or libel. You cannot threaten the life the President. You cannot openly advocate for violent action against a group of people.

Canada actually has hate crime legislation which allows prosecution of those who counsel hatred (as much as I dislike and disagree with said legislation) but that's another subject altogether... How do you translate freedom of speech into appeasement?

I haven't said freedom of speech is appeasement. Tolerating violations of freedom of speech would be considered appeasement, but again, I'm not even making that accusation. Right now, Tony Blair is finding that his country has been entirely too tolerant of hate speech by radical Islamic clerics.

I'm saying that Canada's immigration policies, and by extension, it's relatively facile ability to arrive in the country and obtain assylum, are a problem. And that point is one you, yourself, are in agreement with. To wit:

As you know from my previous posts on the Edge, I don't care much for Canada's Immigration & Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and I disagree strongly with our Liberal government's lack of commitment in dealing with Immigration issues but although you rushed over it quickly, the simple fact is... the 9/11 terrorists entered the USA, took flight training there and did their acts of terror entirely within the USA. Pointing fingers at Canada after 9/11 is, again, hypocritical.

I've already acknowledged that none of the 9/11 terrorists entered this country from Canada. But I also theorized that with increased restrictions on entering this country from international flights, it's more likely that terrorists traveling to the US from the Middle East or Africa would find it easier to enter Canada now, and then cross over the border.

Even if that scenario does not occur, you have to admit that the current immigration policies in Canada could be creating the same sort of situation Britain is facing: an "enemy among us" situation within Canada. How many of Canada's major cities have Islamic sub-communities withing them? Can you be completely sure everyone within those sub-communities considers themselves Canadian first, and Moslem second?

It's a legitimate question.

-Patrick

[Mac]

Mac,
The four important words not included in any of the amendments to the Constitution are "...up to a point."
I wonder why those four important words weren't included if such is the case?

Right now, Tony Blair is finding that his country has been entirely too tolerant of hate speech by radical Islamic clerics.
There is marked difference between Canada and Great Britain for all we share a Queen. The "Troubles" in Northern Ireland are because one group wants to separate from Britain. We have a similar situation with the French in Quebec wanting to separate from Canada. In Northern Ireland, it's been decades of armed conflict. In Canada, the seperatists have worked within the democratic process... and so far have failed to secure a majority vote for separation in two referendums although there are some suggestions of a third attempt...

Perhaps our Canadian philosophy is more successful at integration than Britain's model? If so, let's hope that philosophy works for the Muslim groups as well.

Can you be completely sure everyone within those sub-communities considers themselves Canadian first, and Moslem second?

It's a legitimate question.

-Patrick
I won't reiterate what I said above but I will agree... it is a legitimate question, especially since we know that most Muslim people rank their commitment to their family over all other obligations, even religious ones.

For whatever reason(s), the Canadian federal government takes it's Geneva Convention on Refugees commitments very seriously. If anyone arrives and uses the magic word "refugee" they're automatically given consideration as such. That does not mean they're set loose into the population. Every refugee claim is investigated for veracity but (and this is where I object) the benefit of the doubt is always afforded to the refugee. If I had my way, any evidence of criminality (including false identification) would result in automatic deportation. Similarly, if someone could apply through the regular immigation process and chooses to "jump the line" by a refugee claim, they should be firmly tossed to the back of the line and then their immigration application should be scrutinized.

Unfortunately, the Immigation department is so understaffed, they're barely able to keep up with the incoming cases, let alone pursue false refugee claimants. That being said, the border between Canada and the US has tightened considerably since 9/11 through various means... which is a good thing... Those changes came grudgingly since our federal government prefers to waste our tax dollars filling their friends' pockets rather than doing legitimate work.

-Mac

[67HEAVEN]

How many of Canada's major cities have Islamic sub-communities withing them? Can you be completely sure everyone within those sub-communities considers themselves Canadian first, and Moslem second?[/font]


It's a legitimate question.

-Patrick

I agree it's a problem..............for both of us.

http://standeyo.com/News_Files/UN_Images/Terrorist.network.map.gif

[KOPBET]

I agree it's a problem..............for both of us.



Your map is incorrect.

There are NO terrorists in Oklahoma. :W I looked.


http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/image-files/head-in-sand.jpg

:D

[67HEAVEN]

Your map is incorrect.

There are NO terrorists in Oklahoma. :W I looked.


http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/image-files/head-in-sand.jpg

:D

Is KOPBET Russian for ostrich? ;LOL

[RedRagTop]

I tells ya, this quote from KOPBET earlier reflects the sad reality of Canadian PC politics gone mad. Can anyone describe a better reason for immediate and final deportation of an entire family?


"Canadian Family Proud of Their Terrorist Links (March 2004) A Canadian family that has long denied ties to al-Qaeda now admits that they are not only terrorists, but believe it's noble for them to die for the cause. Abdurahman Khadr admitted to CBC-TV's The National this month that some of his brothers and his father fought as al-Qaeda terrorists and that they even stayed with Osama bin Laden. And his mother and sister, interviewed in Pakistan, said they were proud of their family's connection to the terrorists behind the September 2001 attacks. The patriarch, 57-year-old Ahmed Said Khadr, who was born in Egypt but became a Canadian citizen, was killed fighting Pakistani forces in October. One of his sons, 14-year-old Karim, was wounded in the battle and is in a military hospital in Rawalpindi, paralysed from the waist down. Another son, Omar, was captured by U.S. forces after an attack in Afghanistan and is being held at the American jail in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Abdurahman Khadr, who was released from the U.S. jail and eventually returned to Toronto last year, says he wants to be a peaceful Muslim. The rest of the family is expected to return to Canada to seek tax-payer funded medical care for Karim"


more . . .
http://www.lifesafety.ca/documents/ls0009.htm

[jrose7004]

By the very nature of terrorists is that they can attack anywhere anytime!

[RedRagTop]

By the very nature of terrorists is that they can attack anywhere anytime!

Motivations?

[67HEAVEN]

Motivations?

1. Troops in Afghanistan for several years now.

2. Canadian naval ships patrolling the Persian Gulf to "assist" the U.S. cause in Iraq......in spite of what our governement admits to.

3. The arrest and detention of radical Mulsims in Canada.

4. JTF-2 (our version of Navy Seals) newly involved in Afghanistan to hunt down and neutralize the Taliban.

5. bin Laden, himself, has named Canada as being on the target list.

There are plenty more, but that's enough to satisfy the enemy.