Canadians not psychologically braced for terrorism, McLellan says. ⇒
12 July 2005, early evening
Am I the only one who really can't stand McLellan. She's got to be on the most uncharismatic leaders in the Liberal party. Her recent fear mongering makes her all the more annoying. How exactly do you prepare yourself for a terrorist attack?
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
Yeah, her whiny voice gets a little tiring too.
I agree with her about how canadians aren’t ready. A lot of us have convinced ourselves that we’re so loved and admired that no one would want to hurt us, despite the fact that we’ve been named on lists of targets… i’m curious how we’ll react anyways.
by Ananthan on July 12 2005, 7:45 pm #
I think you prepare yourself by invading Iraq so you don’t have to fight “them” “here”...not, wait, that’s the American way, not the Canadian way….nevermind.
:-)
by Ryan on July 13 2005, 4:02 am #
The link is broken.That being said, I read basically the same thing in the Globe this morning. I think it’s fairly unlikely that we’ll be attacked, but who knows? The thing that bugs me is how they keep saying it’s not a question of if, but when. It just seems like that’s code for “We’re not going to change our policies that piss people off, so don’t say we didn’t warn you…”[ed. Link has been fixed.]
by Matt (Tucker) on July 13 2005, 4:13 am #
Ryan, thats a cheap shot but in this case I agree with you. Iraq has definitely increased the threat of terrorism. But the reality still remains that these Islamists go back a long time. Iraq maybe your timeline but theirs memory reaches as far back as the Crusades. How can we fix those wrongs?
Now lets for a moment forget that outsiders are the source of terrorism. The reality now is that home grown terrorists can be equally a threat. And now that all of England is asking how British born individuals do such heinous crimes, we have to realize that even places like Canada and Australia are not immune. You can stop individuals from entering your country but how can you stop the spread of ideology? Especially since university educated, professionals are not immune to such bastardization of a peaceful faith. How the western world reacts to such a threat will be the test of our times. Sure the politician in question has an ulterior motive but it is relevant everywhere. Frankly, I don’t know how we will cope. Maybe, like Stephenson predicted in that Reason interview, we will just reach an equlibrium and accept it as part of our way of life. Just like the Spanish who co-exist quite well with the fascist ETA.
On a sidenote, going by the date of the London bombings, its clear that the aim was to remind us of the injustice in Bosnia exactly 10 years ago—the Srebrenica Massacre. Thousands of Bosnian muslims were slaughtered that day as the UNPROFOR stood around and watched. Somehow I doubt we will be asking the UN for an apology. Or hold responsible for another spectacular fuck up.
by Sunny on July 13 2005, 9:20 am #
Ryan’s point is valid. The brand of Islam touted by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc., has its roots in the un-Islamic reading of the Koran the US decided to legitimize when it put the Al-Saud’s in power of Saudi Arabia. (One day I will write a post here about fanaticism and chastise myself for my everything-is-America’s-fault syndrome.)
Sunny Says: You can stop individuals from entering your country but how can you stop the spread of ideology?
Do you guys remember the riots in Bradford? The British should have done something to help the disenfranchised youth 4 years ago. Well really before the rioting took place, but the riots should have been a wake-up call that they had a problem. If the extremist at the local Mosque suddenly gives you options, and gives your life a purpose it lacked before, what do you think is the consequence? Fanaticism is bred from both poverty and desperation. Now, if the fanatic at the local Mosque wasn’t there, perhaps the problem might not exist, but that doesn’t seem like a real solution to this problem. If a society doesn’t provide for its members, than that society is broken.
I think if Canada is the victim of a terrorist attack, it won’t be by a boy or girl born and raised in Canada. The environment here isn’t
conducive to that sort of hate. (Of course, now I’m sure I’ve jinxed our country.)
by ramanan on July 13 2005, 12:18 pm #
Oh, my reading of the situation in London may have been a bit too simple. Apparently the men suspected of being invovled in the bombing were all incredibly boring middle class citizens (bbc, cbc).
by ramanan on July 13 2005, 4:00 pm #
Ram, I believe that the more inclusive the society is, the more integrated and accepting, the chances of home grown terrorism is less. England (and most of Europe) is a collection of distant tribes within a society. How inclusive is Canada? Probably more so than Australia.
I also used to think that poverty and lack of education were factors that led one to fanaticism. Well that has now changed. Even well educated, middle class families are victims of such extremism.
by Sunny on July 13 2005, 9:29 pm #
Today’s Seattle Times had an article from the Washington Post about a survery about extermism.
The accompanying tables are missing from the link, but one of the interesting ones was:
“Top cause of Islamic extermism cited, by country
US policies, influence: Lebanon (40%), Jordan (38%)
Poverty, lack of jobs: Morocco (39%), Pakistan (38%)
Immorality: Indonesia (35%)
Lack of education: Turkey (34%)
[Source: Pew Global Attitudes Project poll of 17 766 adults in 17 countries, April-June 2005; margin of error +/- 2.4 percentage points”
by Ryan on July 16 2005, 3:51 am #