View Full Version : Terror Comes To Canada?
americanson
02-16-2005, 06:59 AM
Easy all I'm hoping that nothing come sof it but according to the national post (an article linked to ottawa citizen) Deputy Prime Minister Anne Mcclennan (sic) said that the terror threat is greater now than it has ever been. She also cites the controversial law that allows cdn police to make preventative arrests and hold suspects for up to 72 hours. Then however there was some disturbing remarks that the Tamil Tigers would rally against this "blatant discrimination" Discrimination? How exactly is it discrimination to arrest those who one may strongly feel is a risk? Oh right it wouldn't be politically correct. Anyhoo all the best Canada and here's hoping that nothing comes of this. I was saddened however by many cdns on the sound-off who were yapping that "It's all becuase of our ties with america" "Bush is gonna blow up the world" "We did nothing to deserve this" Etc.
Easy all I'm hoping that nothing come sof it but according to the national post (an article linked to ottawa citizen) Deputy Prime Minister Anne Mcclennan (sic) said that the terror threat is greater now than it has ever been. She also cites the controversial law that allows cdn police to make preventative arrests and hold suspects for up to 72 hours. Then however there was some disturbing remarks that the Tamil Tigers would rally against this "blatant discrimination" Discrimination? How exactly is it discrimination to arrest those who one may strongly feel is a risk? Oh right it wouldn't be politically correct. Anyhoo all the best Canada and here's hoping that nothing comes of this. I was saddened however by many cdns on the sound-off who were yapping that "It's all becuase of our ties with america" "Bush is gonna blow up the world" "We did nothing to deserve this" Etc.
I don't quite follow all that you said- so I will pick out a part of your post: it is a fundamental conflict of the modern democratic state balancing the rights of the individual versus the potential for violence or terrorist acts. Speaking in the abstract- should the state have the power to arrest and hold individuals who have committed no crime but whom law enforcement officials suspect may be a security risk?
happygrump
02-16-2005, 07:50 AM
How exactly is it discrimination to arrest those who one may strongly feel is a risk? (emphasis added)
There are no easy answers here, and it's a very old problem.
This is always a tough call in a democratic society. Do we give the police the power of arrest because of a potential risk, or do we have to wait until something actually happens?
I really don't know.
It's all well and good to talk of democratic freedoms and speak in the abstract, and in a fundamental sense I certainly understand that arrest on suspicion only is a poor excuse for justice.
But... and this is a HUGE but... as I sit here there's a 16-month-old child sleeping on my couch just a few meters away. If this child was the victim of a terrorist attack, for instance, and I found out after the fact that the police had their suspicions but could not make an arrest because they didn't have enough evidence, well, they'd have to lock me up too because I'd find the perps and skin them alive.
onthebottom
02-16-2005, 08:41 AM
(emphasis added)
.......
But... and this is a HUGE but... as I sit here there's a 16-month-old child sleeping on my couch just a few meters away. If this child was the victim of a terrorist attack, for instance, and I found out after the fact that the police had their suspicions but could not make an arrest because they didn't have enough evidence, well, they'd have to lock me up too because I'd find the perps and skin them alive.
When, in my less impressive moments, I harp on youth of some posters it's this type of analysis that is missing from their thinking. I had this argument with my father when I was 16 about speed limits. I said people should be able to drive as fast as they want and that there were different driving skills and those, not some arbitrary rule, should limit speed. His comment was, let me know what you think when you have kids crossing the street. Now I know what he was talking about.
I have no problem with the Patriot Act (not the subject here but I use it as an example) because I don't believe the FBI is the greatest risk we face and if they want to listen to my phone calls all I can say is "I suggest no doze".
HG, take good care of that little one.
OTB
Peeping Tom
02-16-2005, 08:58 AM
It is the subject here and I'm not happy because our version, unlike yours, is specifically directed towards use against citizens. The potential for abuse is too great - if our .gov wanted to root out terrorists, they could have begun doing so long ago using existing measures, i.e., refusing refugee status to Tamil terrorists.
I have no problem with the Patriot Act (not the subject here but I use it as an example)
important words to remember
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
When, in my less impressive moments, I harp on youth of some posters it's this type of analysis that is missing from their thinking. I had this argument with my father when I was 16 about speed limits. I said people should be able to drive as fast as they want and that there were different driving skills and those, not some arbitrary rule, should limit speed. His comment was, let me know what you think when you have kids crossing the street. Now I know what he was talking about.
I have no problem with the Patriot Act (not the subject here but I use it as an example) because I don't believe the FBI is the greatest risk we face and if they want to listen to my phone calls all I can say is "I suggest no doze".
HG, take good care of that little one.
OTB
My heart agrees with HG- i have four kids of my own, and no wall would come between me and someone who hurt them, but this is a society of law and everytime rights are violated then we are all diminished.
americanson
02-16-2005, 11:57 AM
Sorry to say gents but I have to agree with so-called "Racial Profiling" Sure the majority of Muslims aren't terrorists but with the F.B.I. actively hunting them why harass the pennsylvania amish? Rather as Ann Coulter said "When there's a 100% chance that a certain group will committ acts of terror then it's no longer profiling. Rather it's called meeting a description of the suspect."
As for Canada well it's good to see that Ottawa is at least taking the threat seriously and taking preventative measures so keep up the good work.
Finally to those who say well it is discrimination to target Muslims. Yeah I agree it is but so what? When media darling Robert Kennedy targeted the Ku Klux Klan should he have investigated blacks as well?
wrong hole
02-16-2005, 12:05 PM
Easy all I'm hoping that nothing come sof it but according to the national post (an article linked to ottawa citizen) Deputy Prime Minister Anne Mcclennan (sic) said that the terror threat is greater now than it has ever been. She also cites the controversial law that allows cdn police to make preventative arrests and hold suspects for up to 72 hours. Then however there was some disturbing remarks that the Tamil Tigers would rally against this "blatant discrimination" Discrimination? How exactly is it discrimination to arrest those who one may strongly feel is a risk? Oh right it wouldn't be politically correct. Anyhoo all the best Canada and here's hoping that nothing comes of this. I was saddened however by many cdns on the sound-off who were yapping that "It's all becuase of our ties with america" "Bush is gonna blow up the world" "We did nothing to deserve this" Etc.
I have no clue...the point you are trying to convey. I don't no why people would try to peddle fear....it makes xenophobes out of everyone.
First off....why would so called terrorist attack Canada....we are such a small player on the world stage that it wouldn't make sense....it wouldn't even make a splash.....the only country I would fear....would be the USA in the future....when they need fresh water
Second....even if the terrorist decides to attack Canada for some inane reason....there's really nothing we can do about it (I mean if some group is desperate enough to sacrifice themselves to achieve a goal, no amount of money, army, weapons will prevent it)...so why bother living in fear....live your life...you die...you die...sooner or later...everyone's worm meat...even the people who fellate jesus christ in trade for eternal bliss
americanson
02-16-2005, 12:23 PM
Whose trying to peddle fear wrong hole? As far as I can tell from the article Ms. Mclellan seems genuinly concerned about a possible terror strike on Canada. Also, to refute some points 1) You asked why would anyone attack Caanda? Well simply put terrorists hate the Western way of life and also Osama himself has threatened Canada on at least two occasions.
2) True that one cannot eliminate the threat entirely but you can take preventive measures don't you think? Wouldn't you rather it not happen? Oh yeah the U.S. and Canada relations have been strained as of late yes but a "hostile takeover" Please. Not even the cbc has suggested that..... yet.
onthebottom
02-16-2005, 12:40 PM
My heart agrees with HG- i have four kids of my own, and no wall would come between me and someone who hurt them, but this is a society of law and everytime rights are violated then we are all diminished.
I just don't think a roving (multiple phone) wiretap approved by a judge is a violation of rights. I liked reading those amendments - makes me proud given how long ago some of those were written. You forgot the II Amendment so I'll quote it here ;-)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Xth is also interesting - give you a sense of the "States Rights" feelings of the time:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
OTB
yychobbyist
02-16-2005, 01:09 PM
You know the interesting thing about constitutions is really how very little they say about specifics and how much latitude framers of constitutions give future members of society to interpret what constitutional provisions mean.
Anyway, back to the topic at task. One problematic thing with all these issues related to freedom and terrorism is that we'll likely never know whether any of the provisions like racial profiling, detention without reason and/or representation and the broader provisions of laws like the Patriot Act actually do anything. If future terrorist attacks occur maybe they occur because of faulty intelligence, simple and every day human error, or the cunning ability of a motivated terrorist. And the result of any further attacks? An ever increasing number of laws which have the possiblity of severely limiting personal freedoms.
If no further terrorist attacks occur, we don't know if its because of these kinds of laws, good intelligence, poltical and economic provisions or just simple average every day good luck.
wrong hole
02-16-2005, 01:15 PM
Whose trying to peddle fear wrong hole? As far as I can tell from the article Ms. Mclellan seems genuinly concerned about a possible terror strike on Canada. Also, to refute some points 1) You asked why would anyone attack Caanda? Well simply put terrorists hate the Western way of life and also Osama himself has threatened Canada on at least two occasions.
2) True that one cannot eliminate the threat entirely but you can take preventive measures don't you think? Wouldn't you rather it not happen? Oh yeah the U.S. and Canada relations have been strained as of late yes but a "hostile takeover" Please. Not even the cbc has suggested that..... yet.
1) To attack Canada inorder to send a political message is useless....no one in the world would care....I don't even think some Canadians would care. Terrorist want attention on the world stage....attacking Canada will not give them the attention they require.....hey look terrorist destroyed the CN tower.....CN....what...where's that?
2) When a group is so determined in their cause....no amount of preventive measures will stop them...so why live in fear and waste our resources in trying to stop something that cannot be stop(you might deter them for a bit)....the resources should be spent living our lives, not hiding from our fears. I think this makes more sense.
"hostile takeover".....dude, the USA already owns our ass economically....why would they bother doing a hostile takeover.....what I mean is....in 10 or 20 years...there will be a shortage of fresh water or reusable water in the USA....Canada has the most....you figure sooner or later...the USA will start parasiting the water via economics or maybe even force...who knows
onthebottom
02-16-2005, 01:18 PM
You know the interesting thing about constitutions is really how very little they say about specifics and how much latitude framers of constitutions give future members of society to interpret what constitutional provisions mean.
True, but I've always gotten a kick out of the specificity in the 7th
:
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Anyway, back to the topic at task. One problematic thing with all these issues related to freedom and terrorism is that we'll likely never know whether any of the provisions like racial profiling, detention without reason and/or representation and the broader provisions of laws like the Patriot Act actually do anything. If future terrorist attacks occur maybe they occur because of faulty intelligence, simple and every day human error, or the cunning ability of a motivated terrorist. And the result of any further attacks? An ever increasing number of laws which have the possiblity of severely limiting personal freedoms.
If no further terrorist attacks occur, we don't know if its because of these kinds of laws, good intelligence, poltical and economic provisions or just simple average every day good luck.
It's like locking your door, buying a security system, buy a dog.... what do you need to do to feel safe and what inconvenience are you willing to endure to get there.
OTB
langeweile
02-16-2005, 01:19 PM
1) To attack Canada inorder to send a political message is useless....no one in the world would care....I don't even think some Canadians would care. Terrorist want attention on the world stage....attacking Canada will not give them the attention they require.....hey look terrorist destroyed the CN tower.....CN....what...where's that?
2) When a group is so determined in their cause....no amount of preventive measures will stop them...so why live in fear and waste our resources in trying to stop something that cannot be stop(you might deter them for a bit)....the resources should be spent living our lives, not hiding our fears. I think this makes more sense.
"hostile takeover".....dude, the USA already owns our ass economically....why would they bother doing a hostile takeover.....what I mean is....in 10 or 20 years...there will be a shortage of fresh water or reusable water in the USA....Canada have the most....you figure sooner or later...the USA will start parasiting the water via economics or maybe even force...who knows
I disagree with you. In their eyes you are an infidel...period. Hell they have no problem killing children, why do you think that they care if you Canadian or American.
wake up...you are a non-moslem..which makes you a target.
yychobbyist
02-16-2005, 01:20 PM
Wow, good thing I only screwed that company out of $19 USD last week.
onthebottom
02-16-2005, 01:21 PM
1) To attack Canada inorder to send a political message is useless....no one in the world would care....I don't even think some Canadians would care. Terrorist want attention on the world stage....attacking Canada will not give them the attention they require.....hey look terrorist destroyed the CN tower.....CN....what...where's that?
2) When a group is so determined in their cause....no amount of preventive measures will stop them...so why live in fear and waste our resources in trying to stop something that cannot be stop(you might deter them for a bit)....the resources should be spent living our lives, not hiding from our fears. I think this makes more sense.
"hostile takeover".....dude, the USA already owns our ass economically....why would they bother doing a hostile takeover.....what I mean is....in 10 or 20 years...there will be a shortage of fresh water or reusable water in the USA....Canada has the most....you figure sooner or later...the USA will start parasiting the water via economics or maybe even force...who knows
We'll just drain the Great Lakes from the Southern shore ;-)
Turkey has been attacked, Spain was attacked. I think it naive, given your (limited) role in Afghanistan to assume you're immune because you're insignificant.
OTB
onthebottom
02-16-2005, 01:22 PM
I disagree with you. In their eyes you are an infidel...period. Hell they have no problem killing children, why do you think that they care if you Canadian or American.
wake up...you are a non-moslem..which makes you a target.
So, what, you're saying we all look the same;-)
OTB
langeweile
02-16-2005, 01:35 PM
So, what, you're saying we all look the same;-)
OTB
LOL :D
yychobbyist
02-16-2005, 01:42 PM
Hmmm, non Muslims are infidels. All infidels must be eliminated. Yet the infidels who get targetted the most are white anglo-saxon Christians. There are much greater numbers of Infidels in China and India than in the western world. I think it's time for Beijing to suffer a few terrorist attacks.
wrong hole
02-16-2005, 01:48 PM
We'll just drain the Great Lakes from the Southern shore ;-)
Turkey has been attacked, Spain was attacked. I think it naive, given your (limited) role in Afghanistan to assume you're immune because you're insignificant.
OTB
cool....I'm gonna start building a fort....get some AK-47's ....assault weapon of choice....gather some people move to the mountains(I know it's ontario...amuse me)....develop a war cry...maybe something along the lines of 'WOLVERINES'.....oh and maybe elect a leader who cares so much about freedom and liberty that he will take it away from the people who elected him in order to protect their freedom and liberties(I'm getting dizzy)....and maybe we will raise a new generation up hating people who pray to the east 5 times a day
...pure utopia
wrong hole
02-16-2005, 01:50 PM
I disagree with you. In their eyes you are an infidel...period. Hell they have no problem killing children, why do you think that they care if you Canadian or American.
wake up...you are a non-moslem..which makes you a target.
I don't think the west has any problems with killing children either....you know when we drop that bomb on a city....I'm sure one or two children have died
oh well
langeweile
02-16-2005, 01:51 PM
Hmmm, non Muslims are infidels. All infidels must be eliminated. Yet the infidels who get targetted the most are white anglo-saxon Christians. There are much greater numbers of Infidels in China and India than in the western world. I think it's time for Beijing to suffer a few terrorist attacks.
it is a question of time, before this happens.
I was really talking about Canada in response to his statement.
BTW the way these nut jobs are interpreting their text, means that anybody that is not a muslim needs to be converted, by force if necessary
onthebottom
02-16-2005, 02:41 PM
cool....I'm gonna start building a fort....get some AK-47's ....assault weapon of choice....gather some people move to the mountains(I know it's ontario...amuse me)....develop a war cry...maybe something along the lines of 'WOLVERINES'.....oh and maybe elect a leader who cares so much about freedom and liberty that he will take it away from the people who elected him in order to protect their freedom and liberties(I'm getting dizzy)....and maybe we will raise a new generation up hating people who pray to the east 5 times a day
...pure utopia
Or you could just have your intelligence and law enforcement organizations work together and share information. Up to you really.
BTW, what rights have I lost as an American?
OTB
onthebottom
02-16-2005, 02:42 PM
I don't think the west has any problems with killing children either....you know when we drop that bomb on a city....I'm sure one or two children have died
oh well
Is there a moral equivalence to shooting at a bad guy and hitting a kid and shooting at a kid and hitting her?
OTB
langeweile
02-16-2005, 02:47 PM
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0%2C11581%2C845725%2C00.html
i suggest you read this.
While it says "letter to America" only a fool believes that it is only directed to America.
I just don't think a roving (multiple phone) wiretap approved by a judge is a violation of rights. I liked reading those amendments - makes me proud given how long ago some of those were written. You forgot the II Amendment so I'll quote it here ;-)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Xth is also interesting - give you a sense of the "States Rights" feelings of the time:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
OTB
I am a big fan of the writings of the founding fathers including the federalist papers. I didn't forget number 2 it was irrelevant to the point at hand. as long as the judge approves the wiretap and uses the appropriate criteria for the approval then yes- its ok. its still within the law.
1) To attack Canada inorder to send a political message is useless....no one in the world would care....I don't even think some Canadians would care. Terrorist want attention on the world stage....attacking Canada will not give them the attention they require.....hey look terrorist destroyed the CN tower.....CN....what...where's that?
2) When a group is so determined in their cause....no amount of preventive measures will stop them...so why live in fear and waste our resources in trying to stop something that cannot be stop(you might deter them for a bit)....the resources should be spent living our lives, not hiding from our fears. I think this makes more sense.
"hostile takeover".....dude, the USA already owns our ass economically....why would they bother doing a hostile takeover.....what I mean is....in 10 or 20 years...there will be a shortage of fresh water or reusable water in the USA....Canada has the most....you figure sooner or later...the USA will start parasiting the water via economics or maybe even force...who knows
if they invade or start taking our water- we all go and piss in the downstream rivers
We'll just drain the Great Lakes from the Southern shore ;-)
Turkey has been attacked, Spain was attacked. I think it naive, given your (limited) role in Afghanistan to assume you're immune because you're insignificant.
OTB
I agree that Canada will eventually be a target- we have had troops in afganistan and ships in the persian gulf.
cool....I'm gonna start building a fort....get some AK-47's ....assault weapon of choice....gather some people move to the mountains(I know it's ontario...amuse me)....develop a war cry...maybe something along the lines of 'WOLVERINES'.....oh and maybe elect a leader who cares so much about freedom and liberty that he will take it away from the people who elected him in order to protect their freedom and liberties(I'm getting dizzy)....and maybe we will raise a new generation up hating people who pray to the east 5 times a day
...pure utopia
will goober be the new leader?
Or you could just have your intelligence and law enforcement organizations work together and share information. Up to you really.
BTW, what rights have I lost as an American?
OTB
the right to travel to cuba. oh yeah you haven't had that for a while
wrong hole
02-16-2005, 03:33 PM
Or you could just have your intelligence and law enforcement organizations work together and share information. Up to you really.
BTW, what rights have I lost as an American?
OTB
Huh? American rights??.....I was refering to my own distopia
btw...we have a intelligence organization...you mean seeeeeesisssssss....I perfer the cry out for the 'WOLVERINES'.....our leader is going to be a cool guy who can dirty dance
Cardinal Fang
02-16-2005, 03:35 PM
Fear us. We are Wolverines.
wrong hole
02-16-2005, 03:40 PM
Is there a moral equivalence to shooting at a bad guy and hitting a kid and shooting at a kid and hitting her?
OTB
So you are refering to 'intent'
so if your intentions were to rule the world...but end up destroying the world vs a group out to destroy the world and succeeded....does it really matter about 'intentions' in the end....the world is fucking destroyed.....and I don't get to masturbate to girls gone wild anymore
The purest intentions can cause the most evil deeds.....morals go by the wayside when in the end...there's nothing left but good intentions
wrong hole
02-16-2005, 03:42 PM
Fear us. We are Wolverines.
hmmm....can you teach socialites to dirty dance and do you have a mullet?
...you can be our leader then
Cardinal Fang
02-16-2005, 03:51 PM
The purest intentions can cause the most evil deeds.....morals go by the wayside when in the end...there's nothing left but good intentions
I really hate this side of Wrong Hole.
onthebottom
02-16-2005, 04:29 PM
the right to travel to cuba. oh yeah you haven't had that for a while
LOL
I'll take that as none.
OTB
antaeus
02-16-2005, 09:49 PM
Within Canada, Canadian entities probably won't be targets of terror. But
Canada is a lovely environment for two things: hospice for fund raising and
planning; lots of American targets both here and ease of getting into America.
Pessimistically it's all too real that any of the American embassies or large
corporate buildings carrying American colors can become a target, as they
have in Kenya, Tanzania, Lebanon, Indonesia, Phillipines, Saudi.
However, I suspect most terror-type activities in Canada are of the protection,
shakedown, extortion and assorted fundraising of terror groups own fellow
countrymen and women. Commonly, what they came to Canada to get away from.
LOL
I'll take that as none.
OTB
Its hard for a non-american to say what rights you have lost. Certainly there are restrictions on freedom of association.
langeweile
02-17-2005, 08:43 AM
Its hard for a non-american to say what rights you have lost. Certainly there are restrictions on freedom of association.
For example you couldn't be a member of the Mafia and get away with it. Associations with criminal organization have always been illegal.
For example you couldn't be a member of the Mafia and get away with it. Associations with criminal organization have always been illegal.
or certain muslim groups which may or may not support terrorism.
Peeping Tom
02-17-2005, 10:27 AM
How about listing the may nots?
or certain muslim groups which may or may not support terrorism.
How about listing the may nots?
so you think all muslim groups support terrorism?
langeweile
02-17-2005, 11:23 AM
Of course not all muslim groups support terrorist. In order to weed out the bad ones from the good ones, we have to check them all.
Of course not all muslim groups support terrorist. In order to weed out the bad ones from the good ones, we have to check them all.
my question was for tom
Peeping Tom
02-17-2005, 02:33 PM
The question was directed to you.
How about listing the may nots?
so you think all muslim groups support terrorism?
yychobbyist
02-17-2005, 02:59 PM
Why don't you list the one's that do since it's a philosophical impossible to prove that an entity does not do something like support terrorism. All he can really do is prove that they have yet to be found out doing it. You, on the other hand, can easily prove that a Muslim organization in Canada does support terrorism.
The question was directed to you.
How about listing the may nots?
all of them.
Peeping Tom
02-17-2005, 04:14 PM
I asked the question; the onus is on red to reply.
You, on the other hand, can easily prove that a Muslim organization in Canada does support terrorism.
Peeping Tom
02-17-2005, 04:16 PM
Meaning:
you posted out of your ass and can't back it up with at least one name.
all of them.
Meaning:
you posted out of your ass and can't back it up with at least one name.
meaning you are a racist bastard and I am not. I am willing to give people from whatever background a chance to prove themselves
happygrump
02-18-2005, 01:53 PM
I am willing to give people from whatever background a chance to prove themselves
...Prove themselves? How about starting with respecting their dignity independent of how they score under whatever arbitrary measure you have set?
shakes head in dismay, walks away
yychobbyist
02-18-2005, 01:55 PM
I asked the question; the onus is on red to reply.
And i asked you a question so stop avoiding it. Answer. Now.
...Prove themselves? How about starting with respecting their dignity independent of how they score under whatever arbitrary measure you have set?
shakes head in dismay, walks away
What I meant was - if they commit a terrorist act then they are terrorists not just because they go to the same temple or bowling league as a terrorist. asshat
Peeping Tom
02-18-2005, 03:57 PM
I guess this is how low the left stoops - one is a racist for challenging a claim, to which the claimant cannot answer. You still can't, or won't answer, Mr. BS
meaning you are a racist bastard and I am not. I am willing to give people from whatever background a chance to prove themselves
Peeping Tom
02-18-2005, 04:01 PM
No - red, wrote, I asked for backup, which doesn't seem to be forthcoming. What you ask is irrelevant as it bears no relation to my inquiry.
And i asked you a question so stop avoiding it. Answer. Now.
yychobbyist
02-18-2005, 04:02 PM
It sure as shit does. You're implying that Muslim groups support terrorism so which ones brainiac, which ones?
Peeping Tom
02-18-2005, 04:22 PM
Nope. If I write something you have the right to ask questions and I have the obligation to respond. How do you expect an answer to a question about my question, when the defendant has yet to reply?
Asterix
02-18-2005, 05:00 PM
Peeping Tom,
In a democracy we call it presumption of innocence. It is not incumbent upon any group or individual to have to prove their innocence. It is incumbent on the state to have to prove guilt, if any indeed exists. Red made the perfectly reasonable statement that any Muslim group may or may not support terrorism, implying that they can't be treated by a blanket judgement of guilt. It isn't necessary for him or anyone else to produce any names of groups that "may not". It is necessary for you, or more accurately the state, to produce the names of those that are. Anything else stands democracy on it's head.
yychobbyist
02-18-2005, 07:11 PM
Nope. If I write something you have the right to ask questions and I have the obligation to respond. How do you expect an answer to a question about my question, when the defendant has yet to reply?
You didn't ask me a single question, you asked someone else. I just happened to turn the question around and I'm asking you to defend what I implied your position to be. Plus, this isn't a court, there is no defendant here.
Peeping Tom
02-18-2005, 10:04 PM
This is a court - the dominion of terb. I will respond, once the defendant renders my query in a satisactory manner. At that point I will possess sufficient information to satisfy your query.
You didn't ask me a single question, you asked someone else. I just happened to turn the question around and I'm asking you to defend what I implied your position to be. Plus, this isn't a court, there is no defendant here.
yychobbyist
02-18-2005, 10:20 PM
This is a court - the dominion of terb. I will respond, once the defendant renders my query in a satisactory manner. At that point I will possess sufficient information to satisfy your query.
Jesus Christ, this is ridiculous. IF he doesn't answer, may I, just so that we can get on with it?
Asterix
02-18-2005, 11:15 PM
This is a court - the dominion of terb. I will respond, once the defendant renders my query in a satisactory manner. At that point I will possess sufficient information to satisfy your query.
LOL
Always hard to tell if a member on this board has lost it or is just joking around. Of course there's also the greater possibility it's both.
happygrump
02-19-2005, 06:14 AM
asshat
Oh! The pain! Cut to the quick by your razor-sharp wit! Will I ever be the same?
K Douglas
02-19-2005, 07:06 AM
I have no clue...the point you are trying to convey. I don't no why people would try to peddle fear....it makes xenophobes out of everyone.
First off....why would so called terrorist attack Canada....we are such a small player on the world stage that it wouldn't make sense....it wouldn't even make a splash.....the only country I would fear....would be the USA in the future....when they need fresh water
Why did the terrorists attack Spain? Why did they attack the Pan Am flight to Lockerbie, Scotland? Why did they attack Beslan? The bottom line is that terrorism knows no boundaries. If everyone thought like you we'd be in trouble.
slowandeasy
02-19-2005, 11:28 PM
cool....I'm gonna start building a fort....get some AK-47's ....assault weapon of choice....gather some people move to the mountains(I know it's ontario...amuse me)....develop a war cry...maybe something along the lines of 'WOLVERINES'.....oh and maybe elect a leader who cares so much about freedom and liberty that he will take it away from the people who elected him in order to protect their freedom and liberties(I'm getting dizzy)....and maybe we will raise a new generation up hating people who pray to the east 5 times a day
...pure utopia
So in your utopia, would you make our hobby legal?
papasmerf
02-20-2005, 04:26 AM
Hey Guys,
Terrorists have been in Canada for a very long time. Sleeper cells do exist. Get over it.
happygrump
02-20-2005, 06:28 AM
Hey Guys,
Terrorists have been in Canada for a very long time. Sleeper cells do exist. Get over it.
Papa's right. Sleeper cells likely exist in pretty much every western country, and don't think that Canada is somehow an exception. Remember the Air India bombing?
Canada does not provide much of a lucrative target, though. It would probably take just as much money, effort and organization to develop and carry out an attack on a middle power like Canada than it would to do the same against the US, the UK or France. But that doesn't mean we can be less than vigilant. On the contrary, the Canadian Signal Corps is vital to the effort against terrorism in gathering electronic intelligence, though it rarely makes the news.
yychobbyist
02-20-2005, 01:59 PM
Hey Guys,
Terrorists have been in Canada for a very long time. Sleeper cells do exist. Get over it.
Not to break any confidences here but I worked for a certain law enforcement agency back when Tim McVeigh drove his truck up to that Fed. building in Oklahoma or wherever the hell it was. I recall very distinctively that CNN was on where we were working and watching what had happened. Within a half hour of the event we began to receive "requests" from certain U.S. law enforcement agencies to watch certain people who were "known to be affiliated with terrorist organizations" in Canada. As a result of this the agency that I worked for began to place 27 individuals under surveillance.
So yeah, basically, they're here. But then again, they're probably everywhere and if we eliminate those 27 there'll be 27 more from somewhere else that will pop up.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.