It could never happen here, could it?-Canada a Target?

[rifleman]

rifleman:

I abhor absolutes.  For me the world is a matter of probabilities.  If I put my hand in scalding water the probability is pretty high I will get burned.  On the other hand if I put the hand in and pull it out quickly enough the probability is that I won't get burned.  The problem I have is that I don't know how hot the water is, how fast I have to move or if I can move that fast.  So on balance I generally choose not to put my hand in scalding water and avoid the risk completely.  That's just me though.

What if they were to enact a law forbiding the heating of water so that you do not have to have any risk of burning yourself?

You are a soldier so I assume that you are willing to accept the personal risk to yourself.  You may even believe that you can likely deal with most personal risks personally.  On those grounds it is unlikely that a personal threat will bother you. 

Most people also are quite willing to accept risk to the broader others in the abstract.  The broader and more abstract the greater the propensity to be willing to accept risk on behalf of people you will never meet.  The risk is theirs.  Not yours.

The problem that I find is when the ground is defined in the "3rd Party Personal".  The threat is not to you personally - I believe there are many heroes out there that willingly accept personal risk on the basis of their principles.  Likewise I accept that most people just don't connect to the world at large and so are willing to accept abstract risk (like the risk of being a tornado victim) on behalf of others.

However when the problem becomes being willing to accept risk on behalf of your mother, father, siblings, spouse, children, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws (OK that may be an exception), friends......are you willing to sacrifice them for your principles?  I have met many women (amongst my relatives and elsewhere) who deplore violence and capital punishment, and are generally of a pacifist nature, but when asked if they would stand by and watch their children shot while they stood on principle the answer is of course not.  (By the way the same pacifists, at least in my extended clan, are usually in favour of castration without anaesthetics for rapists.)

So, to you again, just to be clear, if not focussing effort on the high risk situation increases the risk to your immediate family are you still willing to accept that increased risk that they may die a violent death as a result of your principled stand?

If you don't stand for principles whats the point?  Are you asking whether I am willing to stand by and sacrifice others to protect my family?  Heck no.

Are you saying I should use any means neccesary including the very tactics that we abhor in our society.

 

[Kirkhill]

Are you asking whether I am willing to stand by and sacrifice others to protect my family?  Heck no.

Funny.  I am.  But then that's just me.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I wasn't aware that all the Arab and South Asian Males between 18-40 were doing Terrorist acts. I also be very surprised if many grandmothers were involved in terrorist acts in North America.

That is an absurd strawman argument.  If you're going to argue something, at least act like you're older than 12.

We all know that those who do commit terrorist acts are a tiny percentage of our overall population.  It would however seem astute that we look at what factors those that do participate in attacks have in common so that when applying scarce resources, we dramatically improve our chance of detection and interdiction.

Quite honestly, I don't give a rat's ass if you're offended by that....it's common sense....and for you to deny the application of a common sense approach exponentially increases the likelihood of the success of our enemies. 

Are you aware that 100% of people who shoot someone had a gun in their possession at the time?

Another strawman argument.  How many were legally licensed guns versus illegal imports?

You are right it isn't politically-correct. In fact its legally-wrong.

Other than spelling, it's also silly to put the threat of terrorism into the same category as law enforcement.  It is a fifth column of people who are dedicated to killing and maiming as many Canadiand as they can and their current citizenship is merely facade as their primary identity, especially to themselves is as a Jihadi owing loyalty only to Allah.

Where do people get that I am proposing that we treat everyone equally bad?

Why is surveillance bad?  CSIS can monitor 100% of my activities between now and the day I die and I couldn't care less.  Know why?  Because I never spend time planning on killing my fellow citizens because I think they're infidels and it's my God's wish!

Bottom Line:  Just like putting closed circuit television sets on streets, surveillance just shines a light on those doing things they shouldn't.  Those that are just trying to get by have nothing to fear.

I just stated earlier on that I am willing to accept the risk that something may happen rather then slip down the slope where we start harasing people just because of thier race or religion but apparently I've stirred up all the anti-left and anti-rights crowd who find a need to show me the errors of my ways

This isn't about the anti-left/anti-rights crowd.  It's about the fact that grown-ups know that everything we do is series of compromises.  No one would want this surveillance if we didn't believe it likely could be the difference in saving potentially thousands of lives.  And so whilst I understand your hope for an ideal, I simply ask you to weigh that against the 1,000 dead and maimed Canadians in a Toronto or Montreal Subway station, or large building collapsed by a truck bomb....because that's what's on the line.



Matthew. 

P.S.  If you don't have time to read an entire book on the topic, I suggest you read the attached:  http://www.policyreview.org/139/rosenthal.html

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

What if they were to enact a law forbiding the heating of water so that you do not have to have any risk of burning yourself?

If you don't stand for principles whats the point?  Are you asking whether I am willing to stand by and sacrifice others to protect my family?  Heck no.

Are you saying I should use any means neccesary including the very tactics that we abhor in our society.

1. Gee, laws ALWAYS work.
2. To protect my children........I'd sacrifice ya in a heartbeat.
3.  What kind of 'leap' was that? Wow, some stretching of others words there.

 

[Rodahn]

The unfortunate thing is the Osama has noted Canada as a target in one of his speeches.... And unfortunately they (Al Qaeda) have managed to eventually hit the targets that Osama has mentioned in his hit lists. Does this make Canada a target?? I would say so........

 

[vonGarvin]

Perhaps if they weren't looking at terrorists as being one colour or race they might have seen clues Timmy was a potential? Just saying

No, I don't think so.  When you have only so many assets, and let's say you were looking for potential terrorists getting on a plane.  Any plane, any day, anywhere in the US.  If you checked the old white lady, or the young black man, then you'd be wasting your time.  If there were three 20-35 year old middle eastern gentlemen, and you had info that SOMEONE was going to blow up the plane, and that someone was going to be on the plane when it blew up, you can bet dollars to doughnuts that those three middle eastern gentlemen would be checked first.
This doesn't mean that they are the ones, but you'd be pretty stupid to check the old white lady and the young black man first, IMHO.

As for McVeigh, he belonged (IIRC) to some radical "michigan militia" group, and as a result of that, he fit the bill for a terrorist.  It's not just race, but to discount race as a factor at all is dangerous, stupid and well, dangerous!

 

[vonGarvin]

Are you aware that 100% of people who shoot someone had a gun in their possession at the time?

Wrong
Some have rifles.
Others have cameras.
Take me, for example.  Yesterday I shot my kids.  The photos are excellent in spite of my lack of skills in photography.

 

[rifleman]

Wrong
Some have rifles.
Others have cameras.
Take me, for example.  Yesterday I shot my kids.  The photos are excellent in spite of my lack of skills in photography.

You are truly correct

 

[Rodahn]

Wrong
Some have rifles.
Others have cameras.
Take me, for example.  Yesterday I shot my kids.  The photos are excellent in spite of my lack of skills in photography.

+100 An excellent turn of phrase.....

 

[Rodahn]

'Are you aware that 100% of people who shoot someone had a gun in their possession at the time?'

And they would shoot somebody with something other than a gun/rifle/pistol how??????

 

[medicineman]

Bow and arrow perhaps? ;D

MM

 

[George Wallace]

'Are you aware that 100% of people who shoot someone had a gun in their possession at the time?'

And they would shoot somebody with something other than a gun/rifle/pistol how??????

I think  Reply #251 answered that question.  Your's just added to my confusion this late hour.  Perhaps you would like to get a Cross-bow or even a Long-bow - Silent and Deadly.  No traces of gunpowder.  Use ice darts or arrows and there will be no trace...........opps!  Too much Scfi.

 

[rifleman]

o

I think  Reply #251 answered that question.  Your's just added to my confusion this late hour.  Perhaps you would like to get a Cross-bow or even a Long-bow - Silent and Deadly.  No traces of gunpowder.  Use ice darts or arrows and there will be no trace...........opps!  Too much Scfi.

well a frozen hamburger bullet won't work - Mythbusters disproved that one

 

[Rodahn]

Or how about when you shoot the sheeeeit??????

Chimo...