Canada should sign on to missile defence: Senate report

245

Comments

  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Dude, seriously ... The historical and political context has changed so much since 1812. The odds of an actual war are very, very slim. It strikes me as bizarre that you worry about a hypothetical American conquest of Canada. The Americans are not the biggest threat this country faces. Did a bunch of Americans get busted for massing explosives to blow up Ottawa?

    I'm just not dumb enough to fall into that trap. Things may not seem that way now. But things will change. The decisions we make now will affect us in the future.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I'm just not dumb enough to fall into that trap. Things may not seem that way now. But things will change. The decisions we make now will affect us in the future.

    I agree that one cannot just rule out the possibility entirely. But these days, the danger thermometer with regards to the U.S. is nowhere near the "red zone" ... We have much greater threats to our security to worry about.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Oh, but we've been at war in the past! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

    I think we will probably be assimilated with very little resistance. But I'd like to think we'd fight you and win. You know, like we did before?


    not sure if you noticed but alot has changed since 1812
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I agree that one cannot just rule out the possibility entirely. But these days, the danger thermometer with regards to the U.S. is nowhere near the "red zone" ... We have much greater threats to our security to worry about.

    I guess that depends on perspective. I don't consider any other threat greater. I'm not even sure what other threads you mean.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    jlew24asu wrote:
    not sure if you noticed but alot has changed since 1812

    Yea, I noticed. The U.S. isn't concerned about freedom anymore, it's concerned about Imperialism.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I guess that depends on perspective. I don't consider any other threat greater. I'm not even sure what other threads you mean.

    Sure, but ideally, a perspective is informed by ... you know ... observation. Its not just something you buy into because you feel like it. And I mean threats from inside Canada. All those guys who were planning to blow up government buildings? The ones the RCMP busted in time? That's the sort of thing that seems like a more immediate threat.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Yea, I noticed. The U.S. isn't concerned about freedom anymore, it's concerned about Imperialism.



    bold statement from such a little guy. you worry too much. maybe its time to end it. not everyone is out to get you. even the big bad USA.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Sure, but ideally, a perspective is informed by ... you know ... observation. Its not just something you buy into because you feel like it. And I mean threats from inside Canada. All those guys who were planning to blow up government buildings? The ones the RCMP busted in time? That's the sort of thing that seems like a more immediate threat.

    My investigation of the 2006 Terrorist arrests has turned up only circumstantial evidence of terrorism.

    Zakaria Amara one of the men charged, 20, was playing with his 8 month old son when his home was invaded by police.

    "I'm crying ... My husband is telling me it's OK, they are screaming at him to shut up," she said.

    Read this article and tell me what INSET is doing isn't terrorism.
    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060604/terrorists_court_060604/20060604?hub=TopStories

    There are two pieces of evidence that have been presented in this case.

    1) They purchased ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which could have been used for agriculture.

    2) They made statements online that "connect" them to terrorists.

    Zakaria Amara wrote the following here
    quranicverse99 wrote:
    Ever Wonder...


    A LITTLE MUSLIM FROM PALESTINE

    I'll always be a contender

    Yes, I know my bones are very tender

    And by Allah you won't see me surrender

    Look at my eyes? You'll see no butterflies

    My home is filled with cries... due to all the lost lives

    But I swear by Allah I'll never compromise

    I'll still throw the stones even with my broken bones

    Why can't I hear from you, don't you have any phones?

    Ya I forgot, your not on the chase, try it out and put your self in my place

    Soon I'll return to my lord , the one that deserves every grace

    Oh you don't have to worry cause of me you'll find no trace

    It really is to late, why did you wait?

    You could have sent me at least one dinner plate

    I guess it is my fate

    And La Ilaha Illa Allah is my mate.

    The particular line "Soon I'll return to my lord" is supposed to be evidence of terrorism. But I don't get that impression from the poem. In any regard this evidence is circumstantial.

    Has any of these people been convicted in a court of law?

    Little is known about the one other prosecution under the Anti-Terrorism Act that was started with an arrest in March, 2004 but with no trial scheduled until January 2007, and defence lawyers have raised concerns about the adequacy of disclosure and have recently announced they will challenge the offences under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The resolution of the Toronto arrests are not likely to be known for some time.
    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/canadian-anti-terror-law-on-trial.php

    I guess we won't know for a long time. So don't jump the gun.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    jlew24asu wrote:
    bold statement from such a little guy. you worry too much. maybe its time to end it. not everyone is out to get you. even the big bad USA.

    lol, I'm not worried. I'm just looking at it analytically. I'm thinking about it.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Ahnimus wrote:
    My investigation of the 2006 Terrorist arrests has turned up only circumstantial evidence of terrorism.

    o no not again.
  • bharQ
    bharQ Posts: 1,201
    jlew24asu wrote:
    news to me.

    obviously you're an american
    09/04/05 - Calgary, AB
    08/02/07 - LOLLA!!!
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Ahnimus wrote:
    My investigation of the 2006 Terrorist arrests has turned up only circumstantial evidence of terrorism.

    Zakaria Amara one of the men charged, 20, was playing with his 8 month old son when his home was invaded by police.

    "I'm crying ... My husband is telling me it's OK, they are screaming at him to shut up," she said.

    Read this article and tell me what INSET is doing isn't terrorism.
    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060604/terrorists_court_060604/20060604?hub=TopStories

    There are two pieces of evidence that have been presented in this case.

    1) They purchased ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which could have been used for agriculture.

    2) They made statements online that "connect" them to terrorists.

    Zakaria Amara wrote the following here



    The particular line "Soon I'll return to my lord" is supposed to be evidence of terrorism. But I don't get that impression from the poem. In any regard this evidence is circumstantial.

    Has any of these people been convicted in a court of law?

    Little is known about the one other prosecution under the Anti-Terrorism Act that was started with an arrest in March, 2004 but with no trial scheduled until January 2007, and defence lawyers have raised concerns about the adequacy of disclosure and have recently announced they will challenge the offences under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The resolution of the Toronto arrests are not likely to be known for some time.
    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/canadian-anti-terror-law-on-trial.php

    I guess we won't know for a long time. So don't jump the gun.

    Agreed, we are awaiting details. I never said that these men are 100% guilty right now. However, the possibility of their guilt (circumstantial evidence) is stronger than a personal belief that the U.S. is going to invade Canada. The latter belief is based on no evidence at all.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Agreed, we are awaiting details. I never said that these men are 100% guilty right now. However, the possibility of their guilt (circumstantial evidence) is stronger than a personal belief that the U.S. is going to invade Canada. The latter belief is based on no evidence at all.

    True, both are grounded in just as much evidence. But I don't believe the U.S. is going to invade Canada. I simply recognize it as a possibility.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Ahnimus wrote:
    lol, I'm not worried. I'm just looking at it analytically. I'm thinking about it.

    I beg to differ. You are analytical when to comes to Muslims accused (rightly or wrongly) of plotting terrorist attacks. But when it comes to the U.S., you are going with pure emotion and distrust. You are being selectively analytical.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Ahnimus wrote:
    True, both are grounded in just as much evidence. But I don't believe the U.S. is going to invade Canada. I simply recognize it as a possibility.

    OK, fair enough. I recognize it as a possibility as well. Just a super remote one, because there is no evidence that suggests an invasion is imminent.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I beg to differ. You are analytical when to comes to Muslims accused (rightly or wrongly) of plotting terrorist attacks. But when it comes to the U.S., you are going with pure emotion and distrust. You are being selectively analytical.

    Um, no.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Actually why don't I just open my mouth and you can put words in it, go ahead.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Actually why don't I just open my mouth and you can put words in it, go ahead.

    I was going based off of what you wrote. You said that the amount of evidence for these two scenarios (these men being guilty of plotting terrorism vs. the U.S. invading us) is the same, and that strikes me as totally incorrect. Is it unreasonable to assume, based on earlier posts you've made, that you think the U.S. invading us is just as likely as these men being guilty? I don't think it is all that unreasonable, based on what you said.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I was going based off of what you wrote. You said that the amount of evidence for these two scenarios (these men being guilty of plotting terrorism vs. the U.S. invading us) is the same, and that strikes me as totally incorrect. Is it unreasonable to assume, based on earlier posts you've made, that you think the U.S. invading us is just as likely as these men being guilty? I don't think it is all that unreasonable, based on what you said.

    Well, let's see, the "terrorists" bought ammonium nitrate, that could be a weapon.

    The U.S. has thousands of nuclear bombs. No question.

    The "terrorists" wrote some stuff about fighting for god.

    The U.S. President Bush is fighting for god.

    What's the difference?

    Bush said "you are either with us, or with the terrorists", so basically if we didn't go to afghanistan, we'd be an enemy of the U.S. and considered terrorists?

    What is it that the muslim extremists say? You are either muslim or your dead.

    A lot of striking similarities there ;)
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Well, let's see, the "terrorists" bought ammonium nitrate, that could be a weapon.

    The U.S. has thousands of nuclear bombs. No question.

    The "terrorists" wrote some stuff about fighting for god.

    The U.S. President Bush is fighting for god.

    What's the difference?

    Bush said "you are either with us, or with the terrorists", so basically if we didn't go to afghanistan, we'd be an enemy of the U.S. and considered terrorists?

    What is it that the muslim extremists say? You are either muslim or your dead.

    A lot of striking similarities there ;)

    Sure, I will freely admit that the rhetoric from both sides starts to look pretty similar. But now you are speaking in generalities. Someone getting arrested for possessing oddly large amounts of fertilizer (these guys are farmers? give me a break!) and Bush sounding like an idiot are pretty different things. Besides, we are in Afghanistan and are thus "with" them, right? Logically, we aren't a very good target in the "war on terror".

Categories