"At a news conference earlier in the day, a CSIS official said a series of terrorist attacks plotted against unspecified targets in southern Ontario were 'inspired by Al Qaeda,' adding that the ring of suspects arrested posed a real and serious threat."
"Three tonnes of ammonium nitrate, a commonly used fertilizer used to make explosives, were recovered by police, who say that three times the amount used in the bombing of a government building in Oklahoma that killed 168 people."
A full day has gone by, and so I'm assuming that had this been the press trying to purely sell papers the story would have went away by now.
Whether or not these people had ties to Al Qaeda or they were merely "inspired" makes little difference. Those three tonnes of ammonium nitrate had to come from somewhere. Barring a miraculous coincidence of happenings with Aluminum Nitrate just happening to be in these guys hands, it means that this was one close call Canada just had with terrorism.
My sister travels on the TTC almost every day. Thinking about that one fact makes me cringe the most.
I'm not saying that ANY or ALL of those suspects are guilty, but that explosive had to come from somewhere barring some miraculous coincidence... If not them, then surely someone else must've been involved. In which case this seems like genuine brush with terror that Canada just had.
ReplyDeleteIf you have evidence that suggests this isn't really a terrorist plot please post it.
"'If you have evidence that suggests this isn't really a terrorist plot please post it.'
ReplyDelete"Good one, Jason.
"Of course I don't have any evidence.
"What evidence do you have?"
Besides the statements of police, a whole plethora of news articles, how 'bout lets try some tonnnage of explosive.... I'd say that's some valid evidence. Where did the explosive come from Dave? You're not asking yourself that question.
I was serious about that comment Dave. If you have any links to stories or sources that contradict that this was a terrorist attack - please post it here. The media get's stuff wrong all the time, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong ALL the time.
"I am suggesting a little restraint. That band wagon thing again. Let's wait for the trials before any rush to judgement."
"judgement"?... Maybe you could have chosen your words a little more wisely.
More than a day went by before I posted on these stories, and I figured that that wait would be good in case it was just media frenzy. At first there was no information. I waited until it was confirmed by other media outlets and more wide coverage was shown... I don't call that judgement - I call that being REASONABLE and covering my butt.
I don't think I'm the ONE judging anyone here Dave.
"And I am not saying you judged them. I saw your ? mark disclaimer and noted your carefully chosen words: apparent attempted Al Qaeda strike . A little weak but it is good to see your clarification on the matter."
What a contradiction in terms. First you suggest that we wait "before any rush to judgment" because apparently I don't show enough "restraint."
Then you say I'm not judging anyone. You need to explain yourself A LOT more clearly Dave. That's just not logical.
Now maybe those comments were not directed at myself, but you need to be a whole heck of a lot more specific as to who you are talking about. Because it sounds an awful lot like you are silently jabbing me while I don't notice- something I don't go for.
"I don't see enough words like 'alleged' and 'suspected' in the headlines to satisfy a reasonable standard of 'innocent until proven guilty'."
Ya and there are plenty of other words I don't see in the media enough either. I see nothing that will change the status quo for the time being. Journalistic integrity? - whatever!
"And Canada did have a 9/11 of sorts, in fact one of the largest terrorist attacks ever before 9/11, and that is the Air-India Flight 182 bombing in 1985."
There's a HUGE psychological difference there. Terrorism did strike the US before 9/11, but it was always domestic or small or on foreign soil. 9/11 marked the US's entry into a league of Nations scared by foreign terrorism. The Air-India bombing did not happen over CANADIAN soil.
If it had, I would suggest that things would have been a whole heck of a lot different just for that simple fact.
Of course that's not to mention the difference that the bombing does not appear to be an attack that was perpetuated by a global terrorist organization bent on Canada's destruction. It was an attack against Hindu's motivated by a racial conflict on the other side of the world, by most estimations.
"The main difference being that after the Air India 182 bombing Canada did not declare a global war on terror and invade the Punjab. And radical Sihks have not attacked us lately. "
No. But if a radical Sihk had come on TV and claimed responsibility, and said that more attacks would follow, are you going to dare to suggest to Hindus that they should just sit back and take it?... I would suggest otherwise.
PS - When do you consider a news story real? Because it sounds to me, whenever the newstory says anything negative against muslisms you doubt it, but everything else seems hunky dory. Honestly that's my impression of your posts so far.