And Some More Terrorism!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]vroom wrote:
Canada has not been making the same effort to keep the radicals out. If Canada didn’t share the biggest unpatrolled border in the world with the US this might not be a concern, but since it is pretty easy to get into the US from Canada I wish Canada would do more.

Let me reiterate, the USA is responsible for who it lets in. This is why you are not reasonably blaming Mexico for who crosses your border. It is hardly fair to offload your security needs to other countries. I don’t pay my taxes to my government so that it can spend them looking out for US interests.

Idiot.

Perhaps if you, the US, made less enemies, you wouldn’t have to try to get your neighbors to spend their time and money to watch your back. Personally, I think you are quoting very misguided information with respect to Canadian borders, but the point is moot regardless.

If you want secure borders, perhaps you should lobby YOUR government to put resources into that area. That applies to both Mexico and Canada. Anyway, nice republican tactic to try to shift blame away from the current administration and it’s complete unwillingness to secure your own borders.

For the insanely dense, your country is responsible for it’s own security.[/quote]

Yes, we are responsible for our own security. But, it comes to this, if we increase security on the borders of Canada and Mexico some will still get through. But, If Canada and Mexico up there own security and we work together then the amount that gets through will be less. It is beneficial for all 3 countries to work together to keep each other safe. Now Im not saying that by doing this it will stop all the potential terrorist from getting through. But, it would be beneficial for all 3 countries. It just makes sense for everyone to try to keep terroist at bay as best they can by working together. Now, granted when was the last time Canada or Mexico got hit by terrorist. But, I think it is only a matter of time.

Goku

82

And what, other than some finger pointing shortly after 9/11, has given you the impression that Canada doesn’t take this seriously? The fact our security forces work with yours, transfer information back and forth and so on isn’t useful?

Perhaps it is the fact we didn’t join in with the little tea party going on in Iraq these days? Hey, we did and do participate in Afghanistan, we take terrorism seriously, we just don’t take the Bush administration seriously…

When you guys actually know what you are talking about, instead of regurgitating talking points developed when Canada decided not to play footsie on the Iraq issue, then we’ll have a real conversation.

83

[quote]Goku_SS4 wrote:
I dont think that America has ever acted weak. But, yet we still are attacked. Now dont get me wrong if you act weak then yes I do agree that you invite it on yourself. But, it seems that attacking a stong super power like the USA brings more attention and fear and more publicity for the terrorist than attacking a weak country. And that is just what they want. So it seems that being strong has caused the same thing to happen. So it appears that no country is safe from terroism be it strong or weak.

Goku[/quote]

I don’t think the US was weak either. I think that we were, as my grandmother used to say, “feeling ourselves”. We were lax in our security and arrogant in our superiority and basically unconscious to events that transpired around the world. If it didn’t directly affect us, we americans tended to not pay it any attention. We got shown the chink in our armor any we paid for it. And yes, I do believe that successfully attacking the USA gave the terrorists more street cred than they ever had before.

No matter how strong we are, if we have an enemy that is so focused on our destruction, they will not stop until they either succeed or have been destroyed in their attempts. I like to compare this to locks on your door, security systems, guard dogs, armed guards etc. If someone is determine to break in, they will find a way to break in. It is our job to make that as difficult as possible and play the odds that we stop enough to not make it worth it for them.

84

[quote]vroom wrote:
But, If Canada and Mexico up there own security and we work together then the amount that gets through will be less. It is beneficial for all 3 countries to work together to keep each other safe.

And what, other than some finger pointing shortly after 9/11, has given you the impression that Canada doesn’t take this seriously? The fact our security forces work with yours, transfer information back and forth and so on isn’t useful?

Perhaps it is the fact we didn’t join in with the little tea party going on in Iraq these days? Hey, we did and do participate in Afghanistan, we take terrorism seriously, we just don’t take the Bush administration seriously…

When you guys actually know what you are talking about, instead of regurgitating talking points developed when Canada decided not to play footsie on the Iraq issue, then we’ll have a real conversation.[/quote]

vroom, I never brought up the Iraq issue. I could care less if Canada ever lifted a finger to help us in Iraq.
Im not even talking about Iraq. Im talking about 3 countries that could benefit from working together. Im not saying you dont take terrorism seriously. Im not attacking you or Canada at all. So calm down take a deep breath and relax and lets have a normal conversation shall we.

I think your missing the point here. How is it not beneficial for our people to swap info with your people or vise versa. If two countries are working together to keep there borders safe isnt that better than just 1? It will take more than just 1 country trying to keep the borders safe. I mean if I lived in Canada I would like to know that the US was doing all it could to keep terrorist from crossing over into Canada. Or the other way around to keep them from going to America. Im sure Canada does its part in trying to prepare and hold terrorism at bay. 2 is always better than 1. And in this case 3 would be better than 2.

And vroom not everyone here is out to get you or insult you. Im not trying to do that. I would like to have a civilized discussion.

Goku

85

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Goku_SS4 wrote:
I dont think that America has ever acted weak. But, yet we still are attacked. Now dont get me wrong if you act weak then yes I do agree that you invite it on yourself. But, it seems that attacking a stong super power like the USA brings more attention and fear and more publicity for the terrorist than attacking a weak country. And that is just what they want. So it seems that being strong has caused the same thing to happen. So it appears that no country is safe from terroism be it strong or weak.

Goku

I don’t think the US was weak either. I think that we were, as my grandmother used to say, “feeling ourselves”. We were lax in our security and arrogant in our superiority and basically unconscious to events that transpired around the world. If it didn’t directly affect us, we americans tended to not pay it any attention. We got shown the chink in our armor any we paid for it. And yes, I do believe that successfully attacking the USA gave the terrorists more street cred than they ever had before.

No matter how strong we are, if we have an enemy that is so focused on our destruction, they will not stop until they either succeed or have been destroyed in their attempts. I like to compare this to locks on your door, security systems, guard dogs, armed guards etc. If someone is determine to break in, they will find a way to break in. It is our job to make that as difficult as possible and play the odds that we stop enough to not make it worth it for them.[/quote]

I think you have hit the nail on the head. To quote your grandmother we were “feeling ourselves”. We ignored everything that was going on around us and never thought that it could happen to us. I mean we are the United States of America they cant get to us. No one really thought it could happen.

Now as for makeing it hard on them to get to us. We have taken great steps to do that. But, at the same time have stepped on alot of toes as far as rights and things like that. But, that is for another thread. Thats why I say that our neighboring countries should all work together to make it that much harder for them. Will it ever happen I dont know. Probably just wishful thinking on my part.

Goku

86

[quote]vroom wrote:
Trying to keep the radicals out of Canada is of benefit to both Canada and the US.

Besides being a good neighbor, it also may save your country a lot of trouble someday.

Perhaps Canada should take this shit a little more seriously. Look at the current problems in France.

That’s the other point.

Canada does take this seriously. The fact that some finger pointing took place early on after 9/11 does not mean that we don’t poke and prod visitors to our country.

Dolt.[/quote]

As of this summer the US State Department was still pushing Canada to clean up their act regarding this issue.

I don’t know if the situation has improved in the last few months, I certainly have not heard anything about it.

Please call me another silly name, it really reinforces whatever point you are failing to make.

87

[quote]fahd wrote:
Shahnawaz Islam wrote:

Chinese dictator = Soviet puppet

Dude, do some research about sino-soviet split in the 1960s. They pulled out all support/influence in China after major disagreements.

It’s you who needs to do some research as to whether Mao enjoyed Soviet support in his confrontation with the Kuomitang.

Don’t try to play that wacko/commie card

I am merely acknowledging the obvious fact that Mao and Stalin and their buddies and followers were responsible for the death of millions. But in your blind hatred of the US you cannot accept the fact that the commies were actually wackos who believed in communism for everyone and capitalism for themselves.

I was merely observing the fact that US-sponsored-right-wing-dictatorships are worse than an ultra-left-wing-Chinese-dictatorsip.

You are changing your tune in the middle of your song. I was referring to your post, where you stated your preference for Mao (who killed more people than all the right-wingers put together). If you prefer ultra-left-wing dictatorships installed by the Soviets to those installed by the US, then you have no right talking about morality, the UN and human rights.

Won’t you prefer to have someone your nationality to determine the fate of your country?

Obviously this is a joke based on your assumption that General Shiak was not born in Xibou but in New York.

88

[quote]fahd wrote:
Shahnawaz Islam wrote:

Why do you expect only the US to adhere to rules, while considering it okay for other to violate these rules many times over?

And thanks for being honest enough to admit that US hasn’t been playing by the rules.[/quote]

You are being really stupid. I had already voiced my agreement that the US was being hypocritical by supporting dictatorship. It’s time you started being honest and stopped pretending that the rules only apply to the US.

You should examine your own morality since you are unhappy about the Taleban and the Baath Party being removed from power.

89

[quote]fahd wrote:

Shahnawaz Islam wrote:

Why do you expect only the US to adhere to rules, while considering it okay for other to violate these rules many times over?

If something is wrong, it is wrong, doesn’t matter who did it. China should pull out of Tibet and Eastern Turkestan IMHO.
[/quote]

It’s not just a matter of Tibet and Eastern Turkestan, the communists shouldn’t be ruling any part of China, based on their track record.

Interesting. The US is blamed for being the “world cop” and “moral police” even when it does the people of Iraq and Afghanistan some good. Perhaps you wanted the US to allow the Taleban to kill Americans and allow the Baathist to target Israelis.

Perhaps you should come to terms with your own hypocrisy.

90

I agreed in my previous post that if something is wrong, it is wrong, despite who did it.

You seem to think that I have a need to protect China from its wrongdoings, when in fact, I don’t. I never even lived in mainland China, I do not hesitate in blaming the Chinese government for its gross misconduct.

However, it is a fact that US has not been playing by the rules (supporting dictatorships and various militia groups that are just as bad as saddam, invading Iraq etc… A crime is a crime, doesnt matter how many people are commiting it, or who is committing it.

I am merely pointing out that US has not practising what she’s preaching and you seem to agree with me here. It does not make the US worse/better, it is merely a fact.

So, lets put an end to this, agreed?

91

Goku, you have joined a coversation between Zap and I, where Zap is reusing old partisan arguments to claim we are simply soft on terrorism and don’t care about who we (sic) allow into the states.

The fact of the matter is that Canada is another nation and we do have our own rules and procedures to follow. However, you can rest assured that Canadian citizens have been upset by just how much information has been shared by our own agencies with the US, in contravention of the rights of Canadian citizens at times.

Zap, you don’t have any idea what you are talking about. I see silly baseless claims made concerning Canada in the news – if Canada ever gets mentioned, and since the non-participation in the Iraq war it has generally been fairly negative, and incorrect I might add.

It is the same old attack and discredit tactic because Canadain policy has voiced a different opinion than your Bush administration on some issues. Spin spin spin. Believe it all you wish, but I’ll reiterate, each country is sovereign to itself and ultimately RESPONSIBLE for it’s own security.

Point fingers all you want… but where the blame lies for any laxity of entry into the US is sqaurely on the shoulders of your own government. Canada is not going to build the modern day equivalent of the Berlin wall to control traffic.

In Canada, people are still innocent until proven guilty, and as such, they have rights that our government cannot abrogate. I’m sorry your government no longer believes in such principles, or that such principles are no longer convenient for you, but it isn’t going to change any time soon.

92

vroom, I don’t know if you are being dense or argumentative.

Canada’s immigration policies are comparatively lax in letting radical Islamic types into Canada.

The US is concerned because said radicals can easily cross the border into the US.

The US has asked Canada to tighten up their policies. As far as I know, Canada has yet to tighten them up to US satisfaction.

This has nothing to do with the Iraqi war. This is about being a good neighbor.

This may also save Canada much trouble down the road. The current events in France should be an eye opener.

Of course the US is responsible for it’s own security. My neighbor is responsible for his own driveway, but that doesn’t stop me from helping him shovel.

93

Seeing as how there are a few posts about Canada on here I’ll reply.

First off, Zap I think you have to remember a few things about the media. They don’t report the 95% of things in which Canada and the US are doing correctly, they report on the 5% of things that go wrong. So of coarse you only hear about the parts where Canada isn’t doing what the US wants.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Canada’s immigration policies are comparatively lax in letting radical Islamic types into Canada.
[/quote]

You have to remember, Canada has the population of California, in a land mass larger than the entire US. What this country needs is more people, it always has. Unforutnately, the birth/death rate in the country is so close that we rely on immigration to grow. So by necessity, we need immigrants much more than the US does.

And Canada isn’t exactly a “hot spot” for places to go in the world. This means that Canada will accept immigrants who the US would be able to turn away. And one can easily see how this would make some US policy makers uncomfortable, but this is reality, and isn’t likely to change (although, we’ll have to see how the events in France turn out - I may be wrong here).

Keep in mind tho, just because it’s easier for some immigrants to become a Canadian than an American - it doesn’t mean we want terrorists here.

To those who say we need to increase spending on border security, I strongly disagree. I can’t help but to wonder if many people understand exactly how long that border is, how unpopulated it is, and in some cases how much complete wilderness it crosses through.

We don’t have enough manpower (let alone money) to plug that thing up. I’d much rather see more money spent on military and intelligence. Let’s beef up our defense and spend more money on trying to find out where the terrorists are, and where they are getting their funding from. At least we’d get some bang for our buck.

Canada and the US needs to work together, and we often do. Canada needs to spend more on defense, no question…but we are a far cry from bad neighboors.

94

[quote]vroom wrote:
And vroom not everyone here is out to get you or insult you. Im not trying to do that. I would like to have a civilized discussion.

Goku, you have joined a coversation between Zap and I, where Zap is reusing old partisan arguments to claim we are simply soft on terrorism and don’t care about who we (sic) allow into the states.

The fact of the matter is that Canada is another nation and we do have our own rules and procedures to follow. [/quote]

Ok I will say this and try to leave you two alone to hash it out. No promises.

Now you have your own rules and procedurs to follow. And that is fine. But, Wouldnt it be better if both sides were on the same page as to what was going on? So as to say, ok Canada is doing this and This is what we are doing. Now, we can try to meat in the middle somewhere. Canada can continue to do what is does and so can we. Just let each other know what procedurs each one is useing for going in and comeing out of each country. So that way if a better way is found by either side it can be shared and made SOP.(Standard Operating Procedure for you civilian folk.) Or the other way around if something doesnt work.

Goku

95

[quote]fahd wrote:

If I plege to destroy the US now (without any threatening behavior/action), does it give Uncle Sam the legal and moral right to track me down and kill me?

Fahd[/quote]

Of course it does.

96

[quote]doogie wrote:
fahd wrote:

If I plege to destroy the US now (without any threatening behavior/action), does it give Uncle Sam the legal and moral right to track me down and kill me?

Fahd

Of course it does.[/quote]

Using doogie logic, Chavez should kill Pat Robertson and it will all be legal and moral!

That will do the world a whole lot of good.

97

towner24, thanks for your reply, I appreciate that someone reads it and doesn’t assume I am Canada bashing.

I don’t think Canada needs to spend more on border security with the US. The place to stop radicals is on the ship or plane coming from overseas.

Your point about Canada being sparesly populated is interesting. That makes sense that the immigration policy may be looser.

I don’t think Canada is a bad neighbor at all, but I think they are taking too lax an attitude about this one particular issue.

98

[quote]doogie wrote:
fahd wrote:

If I plege to destroy the US now (without any threatening behavior/action), does it give Uncle Sam the legal and moral right to track me down and kill me?

Fahd

Of course it does.[/quote]

Pledging the killing of others is a threatening behavior.

For example, it could get you arrested if you threatened to kill me.

If you resisted and shot at the police when they came to arrest you, you very well may find yourself dead.

99

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
doogie wrote:
fahd wrote:

If I plege to destroy the US now (without any threatening behavior/action), does it give Uncle Sam the legal and moral right to track me down and kill me?

Fahd

Of course it does.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Pledging the killing of others is a threatening behavior.

For example, it could get you arrested if you threatened to kill me.

If you resisted and shot at the police when they came to arrest you, you very well may find yourself dead.[/quote]

Ridiculous example, how can you compare being arrested and getting killed?

Threatening to kill someone verbally is a RELATIVELY minor offense. Surely, you cannot be given a death penalty for that; likewise, a country should not be invaded simply because it threatened to destroy another country.

Yes, I may get arrested if I threatened to kill you verbally. Are you allowed to blow my brains off with a shotgun in the name of self-defence if I PLEDGED to kill you?

100

[quote]fahd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
doogie wrote:
fahd wrote:

If I plege to destroy the US now (without any threatening behavior/action), does it give Uncle Sam the legal and moral right to track me down and kill me?

Fahd

Of course it does.

Zap Branigan wrote:

Pledging the killing of others is a threatening behavior.

For example, it could get you arrested if you threatened to kill me.

If you resisted and shot at the police when they came to arrest you, you very well may find yourself dead.

Ridiculous example, how can you compare being arrested and getting killed?

Threatening to kill someone verbally is a RELATIVELY minor offense. Surely, you cannot be given a death penalty for that; likewise, a country should not be invaded simply because it threatened to destroy another country.

Yes, I may get arrested if I threatened to kill you verbally. Are you allowed to blow my brains off with a shotgun in the name of self-defence if I PLEDGED to kill you?

[/quote]

If you were in my house I would.

If you threatened to kill me and then resited arrest you may be hurt or killed.

If the terrorists would simply turn themselves in for their crimes we would have no need to kill them.

We know these guys mean business. It would be foolish not to imprison/kill them.