Question: If we have a terrorist attack.....

[Cranky]

Do you think that Canadians will galvanize around the issue and be more committed to Afghanistan or will we pull out faster?

I am almost certain of the answer but I don't want to bias the thread.

[franko]

I would prefer that the Canadiens not get sidetracked with the issue and just play a solid season. They should take every opportunity to go ont he offensive when they can but make sure that they are defensively aware as well.

Not talking about hockey? Same thing.

Galvanized? Yes. Committed to Afghanistan? Not on your life. Layton will continue to hammer peace, Dion will continue to read the polls in Quebec, and Harper is proving that he's just as much a politician as the rest of them -- principles be hanged; there's an election coming up.

Afghanis can suffer, because they don't matter as much as power . . . whatever that is in Canada.

[vin]

I think it's not a case of if,but when we have a terrorist attack.Canadian's IMO should be more commited to Afghanistan.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Just about to go to ground when I decided to check out the thread. Won't be getting to bed for a few minutes anyway.

This is a very tough issue guys. It's too bad that politics has taken over the agenda in this conflict. All parties are watching Quebec right now and both the Tories and Grits can ill-afford to ignore the feedback given how weak their governments are right now.

That aside, would the Canadian public further support the Afghan mission if a terrorist attack were to occur in Canada? For me that would depend on whether or not the terrorists could be directly linked to Afghanistan. Seriously, if they did establish a link then it's possible the Canadian public would want retribution. And if that does happen then Harper may have the excuse he needs to extend the mission.

On the other hand if there were no link to Afghanistan I think the Canadian public would still support ending the mission by 2009, but at the same time they'd probably expect some sort of corrective action (both internal and external of the country). If something like this does happen it's possible Canada could do what the USA failed to do; deploy special forces into an area known to harbour whatever organization takes responsibility for it and either snatch or dispatch those responsible. Now that's easier said than done, granted. But, the USA didn't have any ground forces in Afghanistan until 2 months after 9/11.

However, if say, the terrorist action is in the form of a hijacking, I think the Canadian Public would support immediate hostile action against the terrorists. Remember the hijacking of Air France Flight 8969? The storming of the aircraft by French commandos was caught on film. The commandos were given orders that none of the terrorists would be permitted to leave the aircraft alive (heard that on a news commentary). This is the kind of response that sends a message to those who think we can be pushed around and one that Canadians would support if it came down to an attack on Canadian soil. Mind you, if the terrorists could be taken alive then they'd support that too.

Would this scenario cause the Canadian public to endorse an extension to the Afghan mission? Well, whose to say for sure. IMHO, it would depend on if the terrorists originated from Afghanistan. If they did, then yes. If the didn't, then the answer would probably be no.

Cheers.

[Cranky]

franko said:

I would prefer that the Canadiens not get sidetracked with the issue and just play a solid season. They should take every opportunity to go ont he offensive when they can but make sure that they are defensively aware as well.

Not talking about hockey? Same thing.

Galvanized? Yes. Committed to Afghanistan? Not on your life. Layton will continue to hammer peace, Dion will continue to read the polls in Quebec, and Harper is proving that he's just as much a politician as the rest of them -- principles be hanged; there's an election coming up.

Afghanis can suffer, because they don't matter as much as power . . . whatever that is in Canada.

Layton would be smart to shut his mouth if that happens. Just as much as he will be tempted to open his mouth and go for the full frontal attack of "I told you so", he neads to fear Candians perception of his as Taliban Jack INVITING an attack. (Come to think of it, I read the latest Bin Ladin yappings. Apparently good ol'Bin is a tree hugger and anti multinationals. I wonder if he will come over and vote NDP? )

We are a couple of days away from 9/11 and I don't know about you guys, but I am a bit concerned.

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

Just about to go to ground when I decided to check out the thread. Won't be getting to bed for a few minutes anyway.

This is a very tough issue guys. It's too bad that politics has taken over the agenda in this conflict. All parties are watching Quebec right now and both the Tories and Grits can ill-afford to ignore the feedback given how weak their governments are right now.

That aside, would the Canadian public further support the Afghan mission if a terrorist attack were to occur in Canada? For me that would depend on whether or not the terrorists could be directly linked to Afghanistan. Seriously, if they did establish a link then it's possible the Canadian public would want retribution. And if that does happen then Harper may have the excuse he needs to extend the mission.

On the other hand if there were no link to Afghanistan I think the Canadian public would still support ending the mission by 2009, but at the same time they'd probably expect some sort of corrective action (both internal and external of the country). If something like this does happen it's possible Canada could do what the USA failed to do; deploy special forces into an area known to harbour whatever organization takes responsibility for it and either snatch or dispatch those responsible. Now that's easier said than done, granted. But, the USA didn't have any ground forces in Afghanistan until 2 months after 9/11.

However, if say, the terrorist action is in the form of a hijacking, I think the Canadian Public would support immediate hostile action against the terrorists. Remember the hijacking of Air France Flight 8969? The storming of the aircraft by French commandos was caught on film. The commandos were given orders that none of the terrorists would be permitted to leave the aircraft alive (heard that on a news commentary). This is the kind of response that sends a message to those who think we can be pushed around and one that Canadians would support if it came down to an attack on Canadian soil. Mind you, if the terrorists could be taken alive then they'd support that too.

Would this scenario cause the Canadian public to endorse an extension to the Afghan mission? Well, whose to say for sure. IMHO, it would depend on if the terrorists originated from Afghanistan. If they did, then yes. If the didn't, then the answer would probably be no.

Cheers.

I agree wit what you say Dis and I would add one more factor. Depending on WHERE it happens will also affect the response. II think any attack in Edmonton would galvanize a strong pro retribution, pro Afghan mission response. A hit in Quebec will probably create a far more "Spanish" effect and probably create a bit of a rift between Canadians.

[PTH]

Well, I think it would lead to a "well, we attacked them, now they're hitting back. It's to be expected" type of reaction in Quebec, though if the attack was in Quebec there might be a strong "let's get them bastards" backlash, instead.

[HABsurd]

If there is a terrorist attack in Canada, most likely the origins will be found in Pakistan not Afghanistan. Like in the recent thwarted cases that occurred in Germany and U.K.

Would you advocate invading Pakistan? Why not? That they have nuclear weapons and have an army (albeit miserably equipped) larger than the U.S.?

I, for one, would appreciate some thinking outside the box.

[franko]

It's a little early in the morning for thinking, but since when has not thinking stopped me from posting?

Afghanistan is a red herring. Attacks are not coming from a "country" but an entity.

Dis: I don't think the majority of Canadians would stomach hostile action -- if "we" heard that orders were given that no terrorist/hijacker were to be left alive there would be an immediate outcry (and three years later a Royal Commission that left only the hue and cry of "this isn't the Canadian way).

I think PTH hit it right: "we're only getting what we deserve but woe is us" would be the cry, followed by "see, Harper is in bush's pocket".

And sorry, TotH -- Canada will not take the lead in attacking anywhere. For one, we don't have the stomach. For two, we don't have the army!

If the "hit" were central Saskatchewan . . . no one would notice, not even in bum****.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

pth said:

Well, I think it would lead to a "well, we attacked them, now they're hitting back. It's to be expected" type of reaction in Quebec, though if the attack was in Quebec there might be a strong "let's get them bastards" backlash, instead.

I think you're right, PTH. I can see both reactions actually. However, I can't see the people of Quebec being complacent regarding an attack on their own soil.

IMHO, I suspect the premier's office would also be on the hot seat to take immediate action as well. And it's hard for me not to compare premiers over something like this. Again, only opinions, but I think Jean Charet wouldn't react as decisively as Lucien Bouchard. Charet certainly has a political fire, but Bouchard has passion not only for his political beliefs but also for life in general. And that passion has proven infectious in his province.

But, this is only me talking hypothetically, PTH. I don't know of any provincial para military unit in Canada that would be called upon for an action like this. JTF2 is located outside Ottawa (gosh with photos published in the Ottawa Citizen no less) and they can be dispatched anywhere in the world in a very, very short period of time. They can get to any of the provinces in a matter of hours and they'd get the job done.

Leaving commando unit scenarios aside, I still think Bouchard would be more decisive in implementing corrective actions during a crisis and also with follow up actions afterwards.

Cheers.

[Skilly]

franko said:

If the "hit" were central Saskatchewan . . . no one would notice, not even in bum****.

You can all but be certain that any terrorist action on Canadian soil will happen in Ontario or Quebec. There is a remote possibility of Vancouver, especially with the Olympics on the way, but 9 chances out of ten it will be where it will have the biggest economic effect and the most possible casualties ....

Let's just review Canada's terrorist action policy shall we? During 9/11 what was Canada's response? They informed all the airplanes over or approaching Canadian airspace to land in Newfoundland if possible ... if not possible then land at the first possible airport. Why Newfoundland? We don't have nearly the resources to accommodate all those planes .... but we did it anyway.

At the time the official response was "kept a secret" ... but it was later revealed that they wanted all planes on the east coast "to limit casualties" if a plane decided to crash. Less population, less infrastructure, .... if our own government felt it was "for the good of the country" to limit a possible attack to the east coast, I am sure the terrorists don't care about the east coast or Saskatchewan, or Manitoba .....

The oil sands? Maybe. The oil rigs? Maybe ..... now Montreal or Toronto's subway? High on the list. The CN Tower (imagine the casulaties if that fell down?). Or maybe even Bay Street.

[franko]

skilly said:

You can all but be certain that any terrorist action on Canadian soil will happen in Ontario or Quebec.

Montreal or Toronto

Exactly, though a hit in downtown Toronto makes a big mess and a hit in downtown Montreal cleans up a big mess (have you tried to drive in Montreal? SHeesh!).

All kidding aside, Next to Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, ottawa is probably the safest place to be -- nothing of value gets done here anyway (with apologies to all civil servants). Blow up the Parliament Buildings? A bit of a blip but life goes on. Blow up Bay Street? Everything comes to a halt.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I don't know Franko. I think if the Parliament Buildings, or even some family fun setup like Ontario Place or Wonderland, the Canadian public would want to see some sort of aggressive action.

franko said:

It's a little early in the morning for thinking, but since when has not thinking stopped me from posting?

Know it well ... know it well ...

Afghanistan is a red herring. Attacks are not coming from a "country" but an entity.

Very true.

Dis: I don't think the majority of Canadians would stomach hostile action -- if "we" heard that orders were given that no terrorist/hijacker were to be left alive there would be an immediate outcry (and three years later a Royal Commission that left only the hue and cry of "this isn't the Canadian way).

Military secrets are the most fleeting of all, Franko. Something like that would eventually come out and it would matter little if it were true or not. Just the acqusations would be enough to sell newspapers and put Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition at the forefront for months. Unfortunately, the Royal Commission you hypothisize about would be led by whoever the official opposition is at the time. And they won't necessarily believe in their own actions. It would be more about bringing down the current government than it would be about what action was right or wrong.

I think PTH hit it right: "we're only getting what we deserve but woe is us" would be the cry, followed by "see, Harper is in bush's pocket".

I don't know if an attack on Canadian soil could result in a Harper/Bush comparison. Yet, again, that would be flogged by the opposition. There are other actions the Canadian government could take rather than mass military intervension.

And sorry, TotH -- Canada will not take the lead in attacking anywhere. For one, we don't have the stomach. For two, we don't have the army!

You're right; we don't have the army for an invasion of any country; that's no secret and historically not the Canadian way (to our credit). However, hypothetically speaking, if a point of origin could be determined I think the Canadian government would immediately go into negotiations with the foreign government in that country. If any kind of para military action is denied by a foreign government, then the Canadian commandos (already in the air) would either turn around or land on some American-sponsored airstrip and await further orders.

Now, I'm not trying to be a knob by saying this, Franko, but if you don't think the Canadian military doesn't have this kind of capability, guess again.

If the "hit" were central Saskatchewan . . . no one would notice, not even in bum****.

There's no way in hades the Saskatewan provincial government would allow the rest of Canada to overlook this. No way buds! And that would go for the rest of the provinces as well.

Cheers.

[franko]

It's Monday. My well-thought out arguments just disappeared due to brain cramp mechanical failure I'll try again (good thing it's Monday, and I only have to work here with half a brain (don't say it; don't think it ;D)

disgruntled70shab said:

I don't know Franko. I think if the Parliament Buildings, or even some family fun setup like Ontario Place or Wonderland, the Canadian public would want to see some sort of aggressive action.

We would see more reaction to an attack on a family fun set-up than on the Parliament Buildings -- casualties, disruptions in planned life. Parliament? A shame, sure (those nice old buildings), but life would quickly go on.

Unfortunately, the Royal Commission you hypothisize about would be led by whoever the official opposition is at the time. And they won't necessarily believe in their own actions. It would be more about bringing down the current government than it would be about what action was right or wrong.

Right. It is all about political expediency.

I don't know if an attack on Canadian soil could result in a Harper/Bush comparison.

It would further the comparison (we wouldn't have been attacked if we weren't in Bush's hip pocket, etc).

You're right; we don't have the army for an invasion of any country; that's no secret and historically not the Canadian way (to our credit).

Definitely to our credit.

However, hypothetically speaking, if a point of origin could be determined I think the Canadian government would immediately go into negotiations with the foreign government in that country.

Ah, Canadian diplomacy. Which results in . . . little. We're the nice guys without teeth. Even when we are asked to take the lead it isn't necessarily followed (see: Romeo Dellaire). I no one listens to us when we are asked to do something, who will listen to us when we are bold enough to say/demand action.

Now, I'm not trying to be a knob by saying this, Franko, but if you don't think the Canadian military doesn't have this kind of capability, guess again.

I don't doubt that we have the capability, Dis . . . just the will.

There's no way in hades the Saskatewan provincial government would allow the rest of Canada to overlook this.

Naw, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be noticed even by those who live in Saskatchewan. Crops drying up, people moving away, etc. Just trying to make light.

I think I'm just getting more cynical as I creep closer to the next age bracket.

[BadCompany]

Really, really hard to say...

Not only would the location of the terrorist attack determine the national response ("let's get them back" versus "this is what we get for following George Bush") but sadistically, I think the number of casualties might be a huge influence as well... Couple of hundred killed, and the country might be both sad, and mad at it's own leaders for leading us into this mess... a couple of thousand, and the country might be frightened enough - and mad enough - to demand revenge...

In other words, a "low" casualty figure (low in terms of what we expect from terrorist attacks these days) might cause a cut-and-run mindset... a "high" casualty figure and we might be thinking "these guys are complete maniacs, nothing we did warranted this."

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

It's Monday. My well-thought out arguments just disappeared due to brain cramp mechanical failure I'll try again (good thing it's Monday, and I only have to work here with half a brain (don't say it; don't think it ;D)

Yes, yes ... being Monday morning I sometimes have a problem processing information as well ... though it's doesn't have to be Monday for me.

disgruntled70shab said:

We would see more reaction to an attack on a family fun set-up than on the Parliament Buildings -- casualties, disruptions in planned life. Parliament? A shame, sure (those nice old buildings), but life would quickly go on.

Here's where we differ. I don't think this government would let something like this go. We're already back on the international map thanks to our troop's efforts in Afghanistan and a measured response would be consistent with this government.

It would further the comparison (we wouldn't have been attacked if we weren't in Bush's hip pocket, etc).

Roger ... I mean, Franko ... I think Harper has only himself to blame for this image ... but that's another thread in itself really.

Ah, Canadian diplomacy. Which results in . . . little. We're the nice guys without teeth. Even when we are asked to take the lead it isn't necessarily followed (see: Romeo Dellaire). I no one listens to us when we are asked to do something, who will listen to us when we are bold enough to say/demand action.

Again, I don't think this government is like previous ones, Franko. The Liberals' horrendous track record of using "quiet diplomacy" made a joke of Canada's international policy WRT imprisoned Canadians abroad.

Honestly, there's countries I refuse to visit today, but if I were traveling abroad and were unjustly imprisoned, I know for a fact this government would be in my corner. They'll lobby for the facts and plaster the situation all over any media outlet that would report it.

To the Torys, international support of its citizens is a big deal. To the Grits ... well, they'll get to it when they can I guess.

I don't doubt that we have the capability, Dis . . . just the will.

I think this may pertain to the Canadian public in general terms. But, again, not our current government.

Naw, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be noticed even by those who live in Saskatchewan. Crops drying up, people moving away, etc. Just trying to make light.

Remember ... the number to call for Junior Samples Used Car Sales is ... BR-549 ;D

Cheers.

[razor]

I seriously doubt the ability of our intelligence community to even come up with a target for a military strike in response to an attack. Unless the terrorists stand up and say "over here, we did it", a quick military response is highly unlikely. I think we would call and rely heavily on our NATO allies, for military assistance and intelligence. That is the whole reason for being a member, no?

I believe the recent German plot consisted mostly of German citizens converted to Islam. In England, 600 of their Muslim churches are lead by a hard line cleric who for all intents and purposes is a terrorist calling for hate crimes against all other religions. It is just as likely for the perpetrators of a terrorist attack on our soil to be Canadian citizens - who do we attack then?

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

I agree wit what you say Dis and I would add one more factor. Depending on WHERE it happens will also affect the response. II think any attack in Edmonton would galvanize a strong pro retribution, pro Afghan mission response. A hit in Quebec will probably create a far more "Spanish" effect and probably create a bit of a rift between Canadians.

I really hope not, HA. PTH captured the mindsets well, IMHO. However, while ideologies seem to be separated by geography, passions run high everywhere in this country given the circumstances.

Westerners, Quebecers and Atlantic province folks are all passionate about their beliefs. IMHO, I think the most laid back people in the country are folks from BC. However, I think it won't matter where an attack will occur; if you hit people where they hurt the most the reponse would be proportionate.

For instance, any major hotel in any major city would be a prime target. The National Assembly in Quebec City. The CN Tower in Toronto. Calgary Tower, or even GM Place in Vancouver. In Halifax, wait for the Tall Ships to come into harbour.

Once it becomes defined or personal, then it's a completely different ball game.

Like I was saying, I really hope the responses aren't so passive. There will always be pacifists and apathetics around; every country has them. But, it's important that aggressors be shown that there will be proportionate concesquences to their actions ... whether some of our people like it or not.

Cheers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Man, I really have to get back to work soon ... but, those post-course reports will be there tomorrow too.

razor said:

I seriously doubt the ability of our intelligence community to even come up with a target for a military strike in response to an attack. Unless the terrorists stand up and say "over here, we did it", a quick military response is highly unlikely. I think we would call and rely heavily on our NATO allies, for military assistance and intelligence. That is the whole reason for being a member, no?

I believe the recent German plot consisted mostly of German citizens converted to Islam. In England, 600 of their Muslim churches are lead by a hard line cleric who for all intents and purposes is a terrorist calling for hate crimes against all other religions. It is just as likely for the perpetrators of a terrorist attack on our soil to be Canadian citizens - who do we attack then?

Good points, razor. Intelligence communities have been stepping up their responsibilities since 9/11.

Here's an article you might find interesting. I actually feel fortunate that there are people being paid to be paranoid when I have no reason to be. It's a longer read but check this out when you have the time. I think the scenario was taken from a similar attack on a Japanese subway system:

IN DEPTH: CANADA 2020

Canada under attack: Story of a foreseen terror

Richard Hétu | July 4, 2006

What will Canada look like in the year 2020? To encourage a debate about the major challenges Canada will face in the coming decades, the Dominion Institute and the Toronto Star have invited 20 leading thinkers to write about an issue or event that they think could transform the country by 2020.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Richard HétuJuly 7, 2020

Since Sept. 11, 2001, reliable sources have been repeating the warning: Canada, like any other industrialized Western country, is not sheltered from a large-scale terrorist attack. And yet, for nearly 20 years we have been protected, day after day, by the grace of God, CSIS or luck.

Unfortunately, this state of affairs came to an end this afternoon in the Montreal metro.

What a contrast between the images of the planes smashing into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre and the ones from July 5, 2020! By the end of the evening, the web had started broadcasting the attack, caught on "smart video" by the public transit system: Absolutely nothing explosive, just the cold determination to kill in large numbers, in my hometown.

The new cameras in the Montreal metro didn't miss a thing, or almost. Installed after the Boston subway attacks, they scan every centimetre of the system — waiting areas, trains, tunnels and platforms — producing video images that are immediately transformed into digital data. This surveillance system, fruit of Québécois innovation, can detect, categorize and follow objects or people of interest according to user-defined specifications. In principle, it can receive real-time alerts and react proactively to threats. It is the very pinnacle of technology.

But will the video of the attack one day be shown on Canadian television? Tonight, broadcasters completely censored it, bending to the requests of authorities, who have promised to find and punish the person or people responsible for a leak that allowed a small-time blogger in Vermont, in the United States, to stream images of the attack over the internet. These made their way around the globe in seconds.

On their websites, Canadian news sources were forced to be content to tell the story in words and photos. Here are the facts unendurable though they are:

The Facts and the rest of the story.

Yet, near the end of the story:

Like the suicide bombers, its disciples are representative of the ethnic diversity of North America. During the sect's last public declaration, less than a year ago, its leader, known as Victor I, predicted a series of spectacular events signalling the end of civilization. As usual, no one took it seriously.

And no one took intelligence reports prior to 9/11 seriously either.

Cheers.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

At the time the official response was "kept a secret" ... but it was later revealed that they wanted all planes on the east coast "to limit casualties" if a plane decided to crash.

Wasn't it also that they wanted all planes out of the air ASAP to prevent a hostage taking or hijacking?

[Skilly]

machabby said:

skilly said:

At the time the official response was "kept a secret" ... but it was later revealed that they wanted all planes on the east coast "to limit casualties" if a plane decided to crash.

Wasn't it also that they wanted all planes out of the air ASAP to prevent a hostage taking or hijacking?

Sure ... that could be one spin .... now ask yourself why planes flying east (Europe) by-passed bigger cities and headed for Newfoundland. I know most planes were diverted because it was the first possible airport to land. No problem with that ... but I distintly remember reading an article where the government made "airplanes of interest" (for lack of a better term - high risk planes in other words) fly to Newfoundland because the risk factor was less. I also remember the uproar here when the Liberals at the time were confronted with it.