• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Terrorist threat

Which city in your mind is the most vulnerable and more likely to be attacked.


  • Total voters
    46

Nielsen_Noetic

New Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
110
I was just wondering what you men and women in the army thought was the most likely target.
 
I suspect Toronto or Ottawa would be bigger "prizes" as it were, however I understand that Vancouver's port is particularly vulnerable.
 
I picked Montreal because of large Arab immigrant population, close to US east seaboard and large population centers. As well the corrupt nature of inport/export facilities as well as crime syndicates in general for the Montreal area.

This is not to say that Vancouver doesn' t have most of the same conditions, just my feeling that Montreal may be more ripe.

B M.
 
Seriously though,

While I am not saying that Canada would never be the target of a terrorist attack, the chances are slim.  It is much more likely that Canada would be used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks against the US.  This argument has been made numerous times.  Our proximity to the US, the rather porous nature of our borders, our lax border control and immigration policies and our large immigrant populations, the availability of useful off-the-shelf technologies etc. make Canada an ideal staging point where terrorists can blend in quite easily.

After the US, Canada has more terrorist organizations operating within its borders then any other country in the world (Accoding to CSIS).

Everyone remembers Ahmed Ressam...

Something to consider...
 
This may sound a bit vindictive in nature but maybe the western world should fight fire with fire. Would it be possible for a western nation to fund christian fundamentalists to launch attacks against the east and get away with it?
Probably not eh, well I guess it's for the better, this way we can claim to be morally superior while we bomb their countries. Well while the U.S. does so anyways.
 
Nielsen_Noetic said:
This may sound a bit vindictive in nature but maybe the western world should fight fire with fire. Would it be possible for a western nation to fund christian fundamentalists to launch attacks against the east and get away with it?
Probably not eh, well I guess it's for the better, this way we can claim to be morally superior while we bomb their countries. Well while the U.S. does so anyways.
yeah, that'll work. Couldn't possibly backfire in any way. ::)  Never mind that's immoral, illegal, and a whole hockey-sock of negative-sounding "i" words, it's silly. By making things better for those suffering under oppressive regimes (bullies, by any definition), we take away any real interest (a positive "i" word) in their attacking us. All we're doin' right now, is rippin' off a band-aid. Me, I prefer to do it quick and get it over with. You let it sit too long, it gets infected.
 
Thank you for explaining all the impalpable irony and humour in my post I'm sure everyone benefited from your obvious assesment. ::)
 
Nielsen_Noetic said:
Thank you for explaining all the impalpable irony and humour in my post I'm sure everyone benefited from your obvious assesment. ::)
that's why you use the li'l smiley faces. ;) Like at the end of your last post. Nice use of the word "impalpable", by the way. You never really see it any more.  ;D Although, I don't think I explained much of anything in the way of humour or irony, I just jumped your shit,is all.  :D
 
Nielsen_Noetic said:
Well while the U.S. does so anyways.

Don't you think it's about time to get off your anti-American high horse?  Why is it that you must blame either the Americans or the current Liberal government for every perceived "problem" you find in the world?  Stop being a hypocrite!  First you question as to whether or not we should fight fire with fire, then you pull a John Kerry and totally flip your stance by berate the US for strategic bombing.  You're young, and obviously have very biased views on certain things.  Instead of letting all of these little jabs loose in your posts, try saying something with substance.  People might actually listen.

T
 
No you just showed all the holes in the argument for what I was suggesting which showed to everyone the humour and irony in it.
 
I like the United States. Because I mentioned that they were the ones doing the majority of war making on our behalf does not mean I do not care for them. Even if I did have some kind of grudge against the United States how did you get from my comments that I somehow felt superior to them or anyone else? I blame the liberals for the majority of problems in this country as they have been the government for more than a decade, logically most of the current problems we have are their fault. It seems according to your Kerry quip that your not a fan of the left either.
 
I think the West misses the whole point when we try and deal with terrorism.  Instead of using stop gap solutions we need to look at the underlying causes.  We have to ask ourselves why these people are doing things like this to us.  Many of those who are involved in terrorist activities and support terrorist groups feel that their culture, identity and values are being eroded by processes such as globaliztion, driven largely by Western economic expansion.  Only by truly understanding the psychology and sociology of these groups will we be able to defeat them.  That means getting into their heads and their mindset and trying to understand how they think and why they do the things they do.

Bombing the hell out of them is only a short term solution and will just perpetuate the problem.  And I'm sorry, but any suggestion of employing christian fundamentalist groups to engage in terrorism is a total farce...

 
I don't blame the liberals for EVERYTHING and the things I do blame them for is their fault, and where did that come from anyways?
 
Back
Top