Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws 507
Coryoth writes "The Canadian parliament has voted against renewing anti-terror laws that had been introduced after September 11, 2001. The rejected laws included provisions to hold terror suspects indefinitely, and to compel witnesses to testify, and were in some sense Canada's version fo the Patriot Act. The laws were voted down in the face of claims from the minority Conservative government that the Liberal Party was soft on terror, and despite the fact that Canada has faced active terrorist cells in their own country. The anti-terror laws have never been used, and it was viewed that they are neither relevant, nor needed, in dealing with terrorist plots. Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion."
Think of the children (of the terrorists) (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unbiased news posts (Score:4, Informative)
It goes on to say, "The fourth and fifth most centrist outlets are the Drudge Report and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume." Nonetheless, the scale was 0-100, with 100 being most liberal and 50.1 being centrist. Brit Hume's score was 39.7, making it clearly conservative.
And finally, "Our method only measures the degree to which media is liberal or conservative, relative to Congress," ergo even FOX's most centrist show is more conservative than Congress.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If so, you are wrong.
Key quote:
"Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let me try a sentence then "Lik mijn reet!"
Nope, still dutch
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We need an "-1 Uninformed insular idiot" mod. All European countries use the more rational DD/MM/[YY]YY format though the ISO YYYY-MM-DD is obviously the best, alphabetic sorting is equivalent to chronological and all that.
The frankly bizarre [M]M/[D}D/[YY]YY format is a PITA to deal with.
Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
OTTAWA - Only days after the Supreme Court struck down parts of the security-certificate regime as unconstitutional, Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed to "sustain" the system used to detain non-citizens believed to pose a national-security threat.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that withholding evidence from i
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I love when someone claims that a policy doesn't work. I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."
Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn
Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that, since the laws have never been used, they were unneeded, not untested. Furthermore, key provisions of the laws were recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Canadian courts.
So, not only were the laws not necessary, they contravened the highest law of the land. It's no wonder Parliament voted them down! I'm just surprised that the same hasn't happened yet to the blatantly unconstitutional laws that have been enacted since 9/11 south of the Canadian border!
Mod parent UP! (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes matters worst is Mr. Harpers response to the opposition and declaring that they don't have Canada's security in mind. Talk about spreading FUD; our PM is good at it.
I feel for anyone who lost a loved one in 9/11 but this legislation was never a solution just a stop-gap knee-jerk response.
Post-disaster legislation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, that's an easy one. Those two positions are not contradictory at all.
Invasive, authoritarian laws like the PATRIOT Act do greatly increase the risk of terrorism (in addition to having many more deleterious effects). But terrorism is a trivial problem in the first place: something that happens with negligible frequency, and harms (on a national scale) a miniscule number of people.
So, yes, the Bush administration is actively working to destroy the Bill of Rights in order to make a trivial problem slightly worse. I do have kind of a problem with that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Although I guess how much people freaked out about the PATRIOT Act, shows just how jealously Americans really do regard their freedom. (Although I sus
They don't have to! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.
Well the last attack by foreign terrorists on US soil before 9/11 was in 1993, so eight years. Clearly the policies initiated after 9/11 were not necessary to provide 8 years of no attacks. Arguing that 5 years of no attacks since in any way validates those policies is the most falacious of reasoning.
And why have attacks not been more frequent? Well first there is the planning involved -- again, 8 years between the failed WTC bombing and 9/11. And more importantly, since 9/11 there has been no need to attack the US on its own soil!
Let me make this as clear as possible: Afghanistan and Iraq have caused more harm to the United States that a hundred attacks like 9/11. In response to 9/11, the U.S. did to itself more than al Qaeda could ever dream of doing just on its own capacities. Not only in material costs but in the all-important propaganda war. The credibility the US has lost in the last 5 years is a huge boon to our enemies. Our status as world leader is
It's a classic strategy, and the same one used by Hezbollah against Israel. You can't effectively attack the giant on its home turf, so you poke at it to enrage it and lure it into your home turf where the giant is at a disadvantage. In their attempts to stomp you out, the giant innevitably stomps on the innocent and thus further increases resentment of the giant. Two wins, military and PR, from one strategy.
The whole purpose of terrorism is to make your enemy crazy-stupid with fear. The U.S. is still behaving crazy-stupid, and paying for it. Why attack again? It would be a waste of resources; they are still getting everything from the one attack 5 years ago that they could hope to get from a new one. If we ever get our heads out of our asses, if we ever get people to think longer than "well no attacks it the last 5 years, so USAPATRIOT must work!", THEN maybe they'll see a need to attack us again.
Re:They don't have to! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they turned us into the frightened hateful warmongers that all their propaganda said we were. Again, the reason they don't have to attack us again is because we gave them exactly what they wanted.
As for no need to attack the US directly since we have made it so easy to attack us abroad, isn't that a good thing? Keep the battle off our soil?
Uh, I wouldn't call one one attack every eight years a "battle". This is exactly the kind of crazy-stupid illogical thinking that led us to attack Iraq as part of the War on Terror. What, you think that if we didn't invade Iraq, that we'd be facing exactly the same degree of warfare over here? Are you really that crazy-stupid?
We have created a net increase in the amount of battle going on in the world. Some would consider that a bad thing. If the tradeoff was attacks in the U.S. that killed between 6 and 3,000 people every 8 years (average: 375/yr) then I'd say that was a good idea.
The analogy that we are the giant lured from our own land is totally rediculous.
That's a weird way to spell "apt". But hey, let's just keep getting beat up in Iraq, a land we don't understand and can't blend into so we're constantly harrassed by insurgents, losing people, money, and influence every day. It isn't an analogy, it's a strategy, and it's working perfectly for our enemies.
As for killing innocents, that is only a rule that the US and Israel must follow, or apologize to hell for should someone "innocent" die. Terrorists kill innocents the majority of the time. They TARGET innocents.
WRONG! It is not a rule the US must follow, it is a REALITY that the US thinks it can absolve itself from. Everyone knows that when you kill innocents, the survivors will hate you. Al Qaeda knows they're fucking hated by every Shia (and many Sunni) in Iraq, but they don't care. Pratical countries like Israel or Russia just deal with the fact. The U.S. is the only one who thinks that the survivors should love us even though we killed innocents, because we're the good guys! The U.S. is the one who thought that the people of Iraq would thank us for bombing them! It's insane.
You really want to prove how morally superior the U.S. is? Do you believe that we are? Well I do to, but the only thing that can possibly show this is actions. So how about this: When terrorists kill innocents, we don't kill any innocents in return. I know it sounds crazy -- what, don't lash out randomly in a blind rage when someone hurts you? -- but I think it would work.
But that's ok, cause if we stick our heads in the sand maybe it won't be us that gets attacked. Unfortunately for you, it was us.
You aren't paying attention. If you follow what I'm saying, I'm saying that if we ignored the terrorists, if we stopped invading Arab nations in the name of terror, then we WOULD be attacked again. If we stopped giving the terrorists exactly what they wanted in response to 9/11, then it would be worth their while to attempt to do it again and get the crazy-stupid behavior that we've been showing for the last 5 years.
So when that happens, you have to ask yourself: Are you going to give the terrorists what they want? Are you going to dance to their tune? Are you going to become, once again, that which they say you are?
And the blame for all our actions, right or wrong, is the fault of the terrorists.
Well, you could certainly call the invasion of Iraq an effect of the terrorists' actions, for sure. Yet I don't think you're going to win any hearts and minds in Sadr City by telling them that soldiers are shooting at them because of Osama bin Laden.
Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are three answers:
(1)They don't have to strike on our home territory to hurt us- in fact, they can hurt us a lot more easily, and more effectively, by attacking us abroad. If I were a fanatical Saudi Arabian suicide bomber, I could bomb a Starbucks in Topeka, but it would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to plan, and it would have a low probability of succeeding. On the other hand, I could just head to Iraq. It's a lot easier to get across the unsecured Iraqi border than through American customs, and once I'm there I look like everyone else and speak the local language, so it's much easier to operate and blend in. And the Americans have done me the favor of shipping to my front door- at the cost of billions of dollars- their young men and women. Praise Allah!
(2) They are busy attacking our allies -as they did in Madrid and London- to isolate us. And quite effectively. Notice how small the "coalition of the willing" is these days?
(3) America is pretty good at integrating its immigrants, so Al Qaeda has very few sympathizers in the United States. Muslim immigrants to the United States tend to like America, identify as Americans, and to pick up our values, and their kids are very well integrated into the culture. They may not like the government but they like the country. However, Muslims in Europe much more often end up isolated, economically disenfranchised, and pissed off at their host countries. That makes them more likely to look to radical Islam and hatch bomb plots, as in London. The way we treat our immigrants, and not the Patriot Act, is probably our strongest defense against domestic terrorism.
Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is we have had terrorism all along, just because it's dropped off after 9/11 doesn't mean there wasn't attacks before. And from the sound of their own recordings they'd like nothing more to strike us again on American soil. So if it is so easy to get across the borders like everyone says... what gives? Apparently Homeland security IS working at some level.
The simple answer is to claim the lions rock idea, which does make sense, but you probably don't live next door to a zoo, do you? Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.
Allow me to make an alternate example. Assume I live in a city with another person called Joe. Joe is a murderer and a thief. I own a lot of expensive items, however I also am careful and carry a handgun on me at all time, and have a security system at home that can't be broken into. So one day after 10 years of peaceful living, I think to myself, well I've never been murdered or robbed, why don't I get rid of my gun and security system? Joe finds this out. Do you think I'm going to be safe the next day?
This doesn't mean I SHOULD have a gun and a security system, or that it's the best way to handle this. However it was effective in avoiding the problems with Joe, just as the DHS is one solution to solving terrorism.
Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they don't count because they didn't happen on U.S. soil. You'd have to be insane to claim that there are fewer terrorist attacks on U.S. interests abroad today.
But the whole argument is that they'd be attacking us here if they weren't attacking us there. Clearly that isn't the case.
The simple answer is to claim the lions rock idea, which does make sense, but you probably don't live next door to a zoo, do you? Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.
Statistically the last attack before 9/11 on U.S. soil was in 1993, so no you wouldn't necessarily expect there to have been an attack by now, and the lack of such an attack is completely inconclusive regarding the efficacy of DHS.
So one day after 10 years of peaceful living, I think to myself, well I've never been murdered or robbed, why don't I get rid of my gun and security system? Joe finds this out. Do you think I'm going to be safe the next day?
Well you were safe from Joe for the 10 years before you got the gun and security system, so yeah, I'd think it's safe to say that you overstated the threat of Joe, and really the gun and security system did nothing.
But that's not really the case. Before, you weren't without a security system, it was just a modest and practical one. Then one day Joe broke in, actually walked in by posing as a repair man which is actually his job, and you got all paranoid and decided you needed a gun and a super invasive security system that checked the bodily orfices of everyone that came into your house. Even though none of the security systems you implemented would have prevented Joe's attack, you still maintain that it is necessary. All it does is piss of your family and guests, though.
We fought terrorism before 9/11. We don't need USAPATRIOT or DHS to do it now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't work? Was there a terrorist act in Canada that the laws failed to prevent?
"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?" (Score:4, Funny)
Once again showing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Once again showing (Score:5, Funny)
Except Santa's Workshop. North Pole, bitches!
Re:Once again showing (Score:5, Informative)
Funniest comment ever. This guy was minister of the environment for four years, and didn't do a thing to curb carbon emissions. Now that he is in opposition, he's Mr. Greenjeans. He's a hypocrite and an opportunist; integrity is one thing he doesn't have.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not incidentally, that's just 6 months longer than the current Conservative government has been in power. How much progress do you think they will make by September?
In his 19 months, Dion created a plan. The Conservatives cancelled it. What did you expect would happen?
Fundamental difference (Score:2, Informative)
The PATRIOT ACT (please use it in caps, as it is an acronym) simply applied certain powers the US Government already had to potential terrorists. It did not make sense for us to have more power against drug cartels than terrorist cells, which is the reason why PATRIOT ACT will not be completely voided anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fundamental difference (Score:5, Funny)
And don't forget to capitalize it for Canada's proposed law as well, the MOUNTIE (Marshalling Our Unified Nation against Terrorism Immediately, Eh?) Act.
Re:Fundamental difference (Score:5, Insightful)
/Yes, I know that the drug cartels you were referring to have nothing to do with Aspirin. I merely used them as an example because Aspirin is generally considered 'harmless' by most people.
Re: (Score:2)
While we're at it let's propose a "War on Natural Causes" because that has also killed way more people than terrorism has in the U.S.
Yeah I agree people need to see "terrorism is not a threat" in print more. What they should be seeing in print is "Tel-Aviv: 12 killed 26 wounded. Aspirin for the lose!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fundamental difference (Score:4, Informative)
Sectons 505 and 805 for example have already been struck down as unconstitutional. I expect more to follow.
Re:Fundamental difference (Score:4, Informative)
The PATRIOT Act (FYI, 'Act' should not be in all caps, since it is not part of the acronym) removes restricitons on apprehension of suspected terrorists that remain for drug & RICO suspects. The PATRIOT Act is a wish-list from law-enforcement agencies (including unconstitutional provisions) that was rushed through on the pretext of preventing terrorism -- it's all the the things they wished they could do, but couldn't (even under RICO) prior to 9/11.
Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)
<rant>
My theory goes something like this. No matter what you do, it's most often politicians and not visionaries who get voted into office, if for no other reason than they lie better. This leaves you with leaders who are more concerned with their best interest rather than the people's, which results in a corrupt government. Also, majority governments can ram through just about whatever they want, whereas minority governments have to negotiate and compromise. Another way to say this is majority governments are effective, while minority governments are ineffective. So given the two likeliest choices of a corrupt effective government and a corrupt ineffective government, I'll choose the latter. At least they have a harder time shafting us.
</rant>
Hey, if you can't rant about politics, what can you rant about?
Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But what is knee-jerk? Creating a law containing sweeping powers to detain and question people related to terrorist activites (whatever that is) in the heated moments after a crisis, or failing to replace said law with something more resonable when it expires?
The answer, of course, is both. I feel that your pride in the Canadian system is somewhat misplaced in that this law was killed because the opposition party (Liberals) voted
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It had an inherent recognition built in that the emergency is a transient state and the measures are not intended to extend beyond that. The reaction wasn't "knee-jerk" at all, it was very wisely implemented.
The attempt by the Conservatives to exploit this emergency measure in a grab
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is the ass-hat (Celine) that led the party that voted against this law was the same ass-hat that was a member of the party who created that law.
AND keep in mind that this same ass-hat (again, Celine) who is saying the govt is not doing anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the same ass hat who sat as environment minister in the previous government and was also part of t
Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Funny)
Brings a tear . . . (Score:2)
Wait for it!
And Now an election (Score:4, Funny)
Gotta love Canadian politics
Re: (Score:2)
That's it for Stephen Harper, I think. It is possible to follow-up this vote with a vote of non-confidence. That should provoke the Spring election that many Canadians were expecting. It doesn't mean he won't win again, though...
There's currently an election in Québec [democraticspace.com]. The Bloc (federal) and the PQ (provincial) share the same electoral funds and they don't have enough for two elections the same year. So the Bloc would vote against a vote of non-confidence. Also, Harper is gaining in the surveys, so
Re: (Score:2)
Coyne brings up an interesting point (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering that the provisions have never been used, you can hardly fault the same Liberal party, five years, three prime ministers and two leaders later, for allowing the legisl
sadly not in germany (Score:2)
life here starts to suck. i would move to finland but the language is just too difficult (still have nightmares from learning estonian, which is more or less simplified finnish with some german influences).
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me proud to be Canadian. (Score:5, Interesting)
Both are sane positions, but I favor the one where civil rights are not taken away. A good day for all Canadians.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh... true in a funny way. A good day for law-abiding Canadians who don't want to let the terrorists win by tricking them out of their civil liberties. And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada. Both groups win by their own measures of success.
Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Once your knee has finished jerking around, perhaps you should read a bit about what really happened.
There are plenty of laws on the books to combat crime. I don't believe for a moment that the police need to detain people for any significant length of time w
Hold the phone... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a good thing this abhorent measure is gone, because it was a crutch to avoid the due dilligence in proving guilt before innocence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hold the phone... (Score:5, Informative)
The anti-terrorism act was largely a means by which the government of the day dealt with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, both to appease the public that something was being done about terrorism, but mostly to head off accusations from the Bush administration that Canada was soft on terrorism. They were never used because Canadian law already possessed draconian measures to detain suspects indefinitely without charge, the ability to try them without ever revealing the charges, and to use evidence that they and their lawyers are not allowed to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, only active because of the Mounties (Score:5, Informative)
Well, just to put this in context...
The Mounties, scared the hell out of Canadians by announcing that these people acquired three tons of ammonium nitrate, and were quoted in their press conference as saying "To put this in context, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people took one ton of ammonium nitrate."
Only later did it come out that it was undercover Mounties who sold them fake ammonium nitrate, and even encouraged them to buy the stuff.
Not all the anti-terrorist laws (Score:5, Informative)
If the threat was more widespread, we always have the emergencies act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act [wikipedia.org] ) which replaced the war measures act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act [wikipedia.org] ).
Article ignores politican context (Score:4, Insightful)
Best News all Day... Well, Sorta... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes I really wonder how long this country has at the rate we are going. Just take a look at Democracy Now or any alternative site - or better yet, just go to news.yahoo.ca/ for a slightly less baised mainstream news look at the U.S.(far less filtering than the stuf we get from Reuters/CNN/Fox/etc main newsfeeds). The sad thing is that it's the working class what will take the brunt of any retaliation for what we
Re:Article ignores politican context (Score:5, Insightful)
We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just curious. What liberties have you lost due to anti-terror legislation in whatever country you are living in?
I ask because I keep hearing about how the US has become a police state. Well, I'm in the US and as far as I can tell, this new Bush police state look
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Article ignores politican context (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I ask because I keep hearing about how the US has become a police state. Well, I'm in the US and as far as I can tell, this new Bush police state looks exactly as it did under Clinton, except the economy is better. I think it is only fair that I stand with my fellow Americans and suffer as they have, but before I do that, I need to know what it is I'm missing.
You missed the memo. We are living in
Re: (Score:2)
I simply don't understand people who refuse *any* limitations on rights
I consider giving the government the power to indefinately in prision people without a fair trial and "coerice" confessions or testimony, etc, etc FAR above and beyond *any* limitiations. I certainly cannot think of ANY other rights we should fight for more? Having given up those rights, no other rights really matter.
Re:Article ignores politican context (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they should. And everyone else is free to spread anti-hate literature that points out the small-minded flaws of the hate literature. It's a good thing for hateful people to make known the extent of their insanity, so that the rest of us can guard against it. Make it illegal, and they go underground, and they feel that their rights are being oppressed, and they are more likely to become violent. Picture a water balloon, with the balloon being the hater and the water being the hate. Leave it alone, and nothing is likely to happen. Squeeze it, and it'll pop.
Re:Article ignores politican context (Score:2)
"You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist." By that you mean terrorists? Canada has made several major terrorist busts over the last few years, more than the US it seems to me. The US has suffered tens of thousands of casualties in the war on terror (or at least in the name of the war on terror), while Canada has had virtually none. That stati
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... (Score:5, Informative)
That's how Canada dealt with (domestic) terrorists the last time. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... (Score:4, Informative)
The Emergencies Act is more circumscribed in the powers which it grants. Declaration of a 'state of emergency' is subject to a review and vote by Parliament. Uses of the Act's powers are subject to judicial review, under reasonably strict constitutional tests.
Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... (Score:4, Informative)
ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see a downside. Anyone?
The laws were used (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Canadians seem to be much more concerned that their human rights are being defended, than their neighbour. Canada seems to try its best to be a place where all people can feel safe living there, though it does not always find it easy between defending what it is being Canadian, and taking into account the needs of the various sub-cultures that make up Canada.
Well... (Score:2, Funny)
"Soft on Terror" (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it that everyone not willing to give up Civil Liberties is considered "Soft on Terror"? People are cowards if they don't vote for every anti-terrorist bill? If you ask me, the people who will so readily give up their freedoms, and even send a nation's youth to war, are the real cowards.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For our globally-challenged American readers: Toronto does not have (many? [grouptourplanner.com]) sugar maple sugarbushes. Picture L.A. with a small fraction of the following: "marine layer", vanity, and racial tension (just the lingering reflection of the racist crap promoted by American entertainment and media). Lived in both. Same traffic. Less guns.
In your face, PM Harper. Face it, you don't even look American...
Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US import most of its oil from Canada. Hitting Canada would have a dramatic effect on the US.
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking seriously farther west for that.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Toronto's incident was only one threat. "Farther west" also seems to be in their crosshair [canada.com].
Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (Score:5, Informative)
The next runner up is Saudi Arabia with 15.4%
Honestly though, the oil market is so tight & unstable that serious disruptions in any large country's output would have a dramatic effect on the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Consider that Canada's total (not just crude) oil production is ~64% of Iran's.
Oil pipelines? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of targets up here that WILL hurt you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (Score:4, Informative)
The plan was to bomb major buildings in downtown Toronto, so yes there were significant targets, and yes they were Canadian targets. As to cells being in place to attack US targets - well that implies or assumes some sort of overall governing strategy which simply doesn't seem to be the case. The Canadian terrorist plot that was foiled was, much like the London bombings, a case of home grown terrorists who were simply "inspired by", but had absolutely no links to, Al Qaeda. The claim that there is some worldwide terrorist network that is out to get the US seems to be more a phantom created by certain US politicians than anything. The reality seems to be unconnected groups who, inspired by the publicity given to "global terrorism", decide that terrorism seems to be a way to take out their personal (and often local an homegrown) frustrations. There is no terrorist mastermind behind it all. And that's one of the reasons why local law enforcement is already sufficiently empowered to deal with such groups without any special provisions for "terrorists". We need to stop treating "terrorists" as anything significant and start treating them like the common criminals they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yep:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_flight_182 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We've been one of the most active forces in Afghanistan, and were there from the start. And if you believe that terrorists hate freedom/the West/women without veils, then we're obviously as much of a target as the US.
Oh, and we're a member of the G7, a major resource exporter, and the only country that Osama explicitly threatened that hasn't seen related terrorist
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free reign (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thanks for visiting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come now, I think calling Molson "beer" is being a bit generous. Sure, it has less resemblance to water than the mainstream US brands (Budweiser, Millers, etc.), but calling it "beer" is just taking things a bit too far.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only Canadian beer these days is the regional mid-sized breweries (being scooped up like candy by the transnats) and the microbrews that are springing up everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, terrorists only mean something when you choose to give them that much credit. Your giving them power by recognizing them as something they're not.
Christians, Catholics and many other "mainstream" religi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, cause there's nothing inflammatory or trollish in this post, [slashdot.org] or this one. [slashdot.org]
(Actually, the second one is kinda funny but that's not the point).
Seriously, quit whining Mr. Coward. There are good mods and bad mods, just like there are good posts and bad posts. Put away your conspiracy theories, dazzle us with your insightful commentary and let the meta-mods do their job.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The "nutty left?" You call them that because they have a federally mandated universal health care system? Nevermind that the current minority federal government is Conservative, or that only two of the ten provinces have a socialist government, while four out of ten are Conservative and four are Liberal. I know that for some people anyone left of far right is consider a nutty far-leftist, but really Canada is a moderate country, no