Canada (terrorism speculation)

[Morgeruat]

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Terror/2...f-1220177.html

The picture is not pretty: a border that is wide open, citizenship that can be both bought and paid for – or merely stolen – with ease, terrorists who can recruit in anonymity, politicians who can be legally bribed, and intelligence and police funding that is 10 years behind where it should be. And if you think that’s bad, says Oliver Revell, just wait until something actually blows up. The FBI’s former director of counter-intelligence says he loves Canada, sits on Canadian corporate boards and owns property here. But he’s waiting for the proverbial other shoebomb to drop. “I love Canada, always have,”says Revell. “But the naivete there has always been of great concern to me. Burying your head in the sand and expecting problems to always happen somewhere else simply doesn’t work, and the price will be difficult for Canadians to accept, perhaps even more so than it was for us after Sept. 11.” During Revell’s 30 years in the bureau, he became its most decorated agent and was involved in everything from the JFK assassination investigation and Watergate to Iran Contra. They had a nickname in the U.S. intelligence for Canada: “The Aircraft Carrier,” due to the ability of suspects to take off and land at will. “If there happens to start a campaign of attacks on us from Canada it will have a major effect on our relationship, the border, the economy, you name it. The U.S. will not accept sanctuary for jihadists in Canada,” he says. “Trade, travel, tourism, and all of the elements of economic partnership will be affected.” And most importantly, Revell cautions, we Canadians should get used to the idea of how they’ll react when something blows up on our soil. “It’s not just a matter of aiding America. Canada has been the subject of terror attacks in the past, particularly the Air India bombing,” he says. “(Terrorists’) specific goal is to spread throughout the world and be the dominant religion and political force, but first to secure the homeland of Islam,” says Revell. “It’s totally naive to think Canada is immune just as it was to think Great Britain would be immune. Their goal is to dominate the world. “They've made that very specific and the fact is a good deal of Islam’s religious teachings are supportive of that goal even if they do not participate in violent actions.” In Canada, such “actions” are likely to take the same kind of form as the recent subway bombings in London, suggests former CSIS boss Reid Morden. The Toronto transit system and the Montreal suburb of Outremont, which has a large orthodox Jewish population, have already been identified as having been surveilled for an attack. An intelligence community source says Toronto transit is particularly attractive, because an attack at one particular downtown transit centre would also hit an attached mall, potentially hiking the victim count and doubling the propaganda value by striking out at capitalism. Morden points out that any target which both attacks capitalism and could cause a high death toll would suit terrorists. West Edmonton Mall would be ideal, he says. “Of the people who’ve been on that list of targets, that list on which Canada now finds itself, we’re the ones that so far haven’t had an attack,” he said. “Symbolic places like West Edmonton Mall are very easy to get in and out of, there are lots of nooks and crannies if you want to stash something that may go ‘boom.’ ” Alan Bell, a former SAS man who now runs Globe Risk Holdings, also believes WEM would be a terrorist’s dream. “Oh yeah, without a doubt,” he said. Similarly, Alberta’s oil industry infrastructure would be attractive because it could not only cause a much larger explosion, and more casualties, but would also choke off the largest import source for U.S. oil, Morden noted. Corporate Calgary makes a fine target for the same reasons. Arrest unnoticedTo get an idea of how easy it would be to kill a large number of Canadians, just consider that back in 1993, a man named Thomas Lavy crossed the border from Alaska to B.C. carrying a small plastic baggie containing 30 grams of ricin. If you’ve never heard of Lavy or ricin, that’s understandable. Lavy’s detention and release was not long for the headlines. There’s not much information available on Thomas Lavy except that he was originally from Arkansas and was driving to North Carolina when he was pulled over. He’d been working as an electrician on a pipeline project in Valdez. Inside his car, inspectors found guns, $98,000 in cash and white supremacist literature. And a baggie of fine white powder. Ricin wasn’t illegal at the time in Canada, so it was merely confiscated and Lavy was sent on his way. There was enough of the powder, drawn from castor beans, to kill 35,000 people. Canadian authorities didn’t know what it was and left it in a locker for two weeks before sending it on to Edmonton Garrison for testing and forwarding to U.S. authorities. U.S. agents later searched Lavy’s home and found more toxins, including more material for producing ricin, which is about 6,000 times more lethal than cyanide. While they were building a case, Lavy committed suicide in prison. Eight years later, the federal government acknowledged in a report on bioterrorism that ricin and other toxins that are water soluble – which means they can be introduced to drinking water systems – pose a significant threat to the general public. Morden is not surprised by the possibility any more than he’s surprised people will ignore it, when paying a little attention could prevent tragedy. “Be a little prudent. On mass transit, for example, in New York there is a looped recording on every bus and subway train saying ‘If you see an unattended parcel, do something about it: Talk to a transit employee or call a cop.’ What’s the deterrent effect? I’m not so sure. But just for that nanosecond, it reminds people to be vigilant and pay attention. “If you just look around downtown Edmonton or Toronto or Calgary there are so many potential targets. But you don’t have to do very much to make them more unattractive. You be prudent. You check the lock on the water supply to the building. And maybe all you need is a slightly better lock. Or, on the same grounds, you want to make sure access is restricted to the heating or air conditioning. “I did a briefing for the Canadian Council of Chief Executives after 9/11 and I was walking back to the office with the chairman of one of our big banks. And he said it was all very interesting, but it wouldn’t happen here. It was just completely naive.” Bell tells a near identical story. “I was supposed to do a terrorism workshop and the police chief of this area near Toronto asked me if I could find something else to call it besides terrorism,” says Bell. “He told me he didn’t want to frighten people.” He agrees one big difference between Canada and its British and American allies is that the public here has not faced an attack, and therefore isn’t engaged by the issue. In Britain and the U.S. the public has been taught what kind of behaviour and individuals to look out for. The government has created an Emergency Preparedness Week, and a website of educational materials on being prepared at www.psepc.gc.ca. Bell is inclined to think most people haven’t visited it. “The average Canadian thinks the average terrorist looks like the Muslims they see on TV or something. They have no idea how to spot someone based on suspicious behaviour and have no idea how these guys work. Attack inevitable “I’ve been saying for seven years, from before 9/11, that we will eventually have an attack here. And people call me a fearmonger. But it’s just the likely reality. We’ll get a bloody nose, the public will be terrified, the government will start blaming other people and talking about how much money they’ve spent trying to prevent terrorism. “They’ll continue the knee-jerk reactions of spending where they don’t need to and not spending where they do. They’ll keep throwing money at domestic law enforcement and ignoring emergency response workers – who need the money most, because we can’t prevent attacks and will need them to react – and foreign intelligence. “The average Canadian has a typical deny-and-repress syndrome. We know there’s a problem, but it hasn’t happened here yet, so we’re gonna deny it’s a problem and throw money at it, and hope it goes away. “But it won’t.”

[Sir Degrader]

The terrible thing is, it's true. Canada, and Canadians as a whole, are far to focused on our multicultarism, and fail to realize that there IS in fact a threat, and to face it means to make some unpopular choices.

[Chewbacca]

About the border issue....

I went to and from Montreal (Beautiful City!) last week via Vermont. I thought border security on I-89 was far more thorough than my previous journeys across via Niagra Falls and Detroit over the last few years.

We were even asked a series of relevant questions by the Canadian Border Guard where as before we would consistently hardly warrant even a second look!

At the U.S. border on the way home five cars in front of us were search underneath and in the trunk. My wife and I were questioned far more thoroughly than ever before. The Border Officer, while friendly, seemed quite proficient at questioning in a manner to test for consistency and deception.

My perception was one of a border that is kinda like both our societies- open, yet secure.

I think both our borders and societies are just to big and too open to ever be 100% secure. The best I can do is live free, so if the terrorists kill me I can die by the high ideals by which I live- whether I'm visiting my neighbors to the north or here at home.

[Melcheor]

A secure, less open border is not what is needed. Greater cooperation between police and intelligence services would achieve much the same thing. If both countries have the same information, it doesnt matter which side of the border the terrorist is.

[Morgeruat]

Assuming both countries take the same precautions against unfriendlies landing and moving about, yes you are correct, but since several of the 9/11 hijackers came through Canada, and as the article touched upon, unfriendlies leave through Canada frequently, we can't base our security on the hope that a country that has shown it doesn't take our national security seriously will get with the program, and they likely won't until such time as they have their own version of 9/11, 3/11, the london bombings, etc etc. When it happens, I think Canada will start to awaken and hopefully be more security-minded than they have been.

[Zebodog]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: Assuming both countries take the same precautions against unfriendlies landing and moving about, yes you are correct, but since several of the 9/11 hijackers came through Canada, and as the article touched upon, unfriendlies leave through Canada frequently, we can't base our security on the hope that a country that has shown it doesn't take our national security seriously will get with the program, and they likely won't until such time as they have their own version of 9/11, 3/11, the london bombings, etc etc. When it happens, I think Canada will start to awaken and hopefully be more security-minded than they have been.

Too be honest, why should Canada worry about your national security (US)

Granted, terrorists have crossed the border between Canada and the US, but is it soley Canada's responsibility? Perhaps for allowing them to land in the first place, but certainly not for allowing them into the US.

Or is it up to Canada to decide who gets into the US or not?

[krunchyfrogg]

Are you for real, Zebodog?

[Zebodog]

Originally posted by krunchyfrogg: Are you for real, Zebodog?

Well, is it Canada's fault alone, that terrorists or "unfriendlys" are allowed into to the US. Canada Customs has no jurisdiction about who gets into the US and who doesn't.

[johnny]

But if the unfriendly's are on some kind of "wanted list", Canada should make it their business that they don't enter the US. Hell, they shouldn't even be on Canadian soil in the first place.

[Zebodog]

Originally posted by johnny: But if the unfriendly's are on some kind of "wanted list", Canada should make it their business that they don't enter the US. Hell, they shouldn't even be on Canadian soil in the first place.

I never disagreed. Canada screws up. That's nothing new, but the US still allows the very same people onto to US soil.