Respond to this messageReturn to The Sin Bin
Original Message
  • You could say it's "Canada's turn," next...
    • Octopus (no login)
      Posted Jul 8, 2005 6:53 AM

      Of the top "international infidel countries" named by bin Laden, Canada is the only one that hasn't been hit by an attack yet. As I've long maintained, that's probably because the terrorists don't want to sh** their own nest. As long as they can continue to operate with impunity there, using Canada as a staging ground for their North American operations, they'll keep their sleeper-cells on the down-low Up North.

      Note: This is the point at which D' will insert his usual idiocy, about my "salivating at the thought of a Canadian atrocity." In the real world, you simply have to take the Al Qaeda leaders at their word, when they promise to attack a certain country. They have been very honest and upfront about their intentions, I'll give them that. They're patient, methodical and ruthless killers. They've said they'll attack the US again, even harder than on 9/11, and I believe them completely. They've said they'll be taking action against Canada, too. I believe them.

      While I don't look forward to the sight of Canadian casualties, from the inevitable Al Qaeda/Islamofascist attack, I don't think the majority of Canadians will come out of their pacifist daydream until it occurs. I'm not sure even then, that idiots like D' and smike won't simply blame the US and Great Britain, and our other loyal allies, for "upsetting" the Muslim world by taking down Hussein. The BBC is largely blaming yesterday's attack on Blair's support for Bush and the war in Iraq, completely forgetting that the terrorists declared war on the civilized world long before that invasion.

      There is no doubt in my mind, that if the terrorists had access to WMD, they would use them immediately on Western countries. Instead of the noisy pop of plastique heard in London yesterday, you might have seen a small mushroom cloud, coming out of a neatly-placed suitcase-nuke. Or, you might have seen a large-scale anthrax attack, that would have killed everyone in the subway, instead of just a relative few.

      People who scoff at the importance of the invasion of Iraq, usually say something ignorant about the lack of WMD found after the fact, when going in it was assumed by all international intelligence agencies that Saddam was not only keeping and developing stockpiles of various WMD, but that he was in cahoots with terrorist-factions who would love to "borrow" a few of his items.

      Of course, the WMD were only one of many reasons for toppling Hussein, but it's the reason Bush and Blair focused on, so it must be addressed whenever you talk about why that invasion was launched.

      And now, it is also clear, that a defeat in Iraq is unthinkable. Al-Zarqawi must be hunted down and killed, just as bin Laden is still on the A-list. Will that end the Islamist aggression? No, not at all. But it would be a good start, and another possible tipping-point in the overall war.


      The Canadian papers seemed almost grateful for Osama's shout-out. A sarcastic National Post op-ed began: "Great. This year we make terrorist Osama bin Laden's Top Six list of iniquitous infidels. Last year we couldn't crack President George W. Bush's Top Ten list of axis-against-evil allies. Well, say what you want, but at least Osama mentions Canada in his speeches." In a swipe at the Canadian government's blasé assurances that the country faces no imminent threat from al-Qaida, the column declared: "[T]he indifferent federal yawn to news of his voice coming back from the grave to denounce Canada suggests we remain a passively unprepared enemy. … [Osama Bin Laden is] a one-man axis-of-evil who somehow figures Canada is a big-league target—even if it's only capable of a bush-league response."

      Toronto's Globe and Mail agreed that "Canada doesn't get it" when it comes to Bin Laden and the international struggle against terrorism. Foreign affairs columnist Marcus Gee bemoaned Ottawa's lack of resolve:

      [L]istening to most government leaders, you can't avoid the sense they think this is someone else's fight. Our role, by and large, has been to act as helpful helpmate to the Americans—up to a point, and not on Iraq. No Canadian leader has made it clear to the public why this is our fight, too. … The war against terrorism is everybody's war. Britain gets it. So does Australia. When will Canada?

    Login Status
  • You are not logged in
    • Login

      Provides additional benefits such as notifications, signatures, and user authentication.

      Create Account
    Your Name
    Message Title
    Message Text
    Enable formatted text (what's this?)

    Find more forums on HockeyCreate your own forum at Network54
     Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement