Ottawa launches Alberta counterterrorism unit

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The law in itself is great. Alone, I like the law.

But with the other non-environmental laws, and their policy of muscling scientists and media, it's just a rule to keep well informed people in their place.

It's an extra step to combat 'environmental terrorism' with newer harsher laws.

We're not even talking about Ludwigs, we are just talking about people who want to do docs on the sands.

And again as I mentioned, we don't really need. Can we say why? Can you tell me why we need this law.

It's a blackout law.

I've read and re-read the article and I cannot find anything that supports the bolded comments. Can you elaborate?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Finally a reasonble, well thought out, and not at all alarmist point of view in this thread!

I know eh? How do I not get more 'thanks'?

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Finally a reasonble, well thought out, and not at all alarmist point of view in this thread!

it's so easy to be a tough guy behind a keyboard isn't it.

edit: this attitude coming from a guy who declares himself as awesome. i think that says all we need to know about you.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

You know, farmers make a lot more off their food than I see as a tax payer. Why the hell should I be paying to inspect their product.
If they're so worried about their product being unsafe they should pay for it themselves. Why do "We, the taxpayers" have to foot the bill?

Just to do a little test, what criteria would you use to determine why you would view eliminating food protections as justifiable?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I've read and re-read the article and I cannot find anything that supports the bolded comments. Can you elaborate?

They are putting extra police in special areas.

Sure some of it might go to court, but what do you do when extra police are present?

What does the public do when police cordon G20 areas?

They just walk away.

Special police for an area not under attack, (except by media).

Connect the dots was boring for me at age 1.5 kids.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

reading between lines here, but do you honestly think they spent that money wisely?

Absolutely not, but I also don't think security for the G20 was a waste.

That's the difference of opinion here on this counterterrorism unit issue.
Thinking it's a good idea, but we need to make sure it's done properly vs thinking it's not worth doing.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

it's so easy to be a tough guy behind a keyboard isn't it.

edit: this attitude coming from a guy who declares himself as awesome. i think that says all we need to know about you.

If you laid off the hyperbole than you would be taken seriously.

This thread is starting to mirror cbc.ca comments. I'm just waiting for someone to mention G20 and fake lakes, F35s, and Mega Prisons.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

As an accountant, there are only two criteria to evaluate waste: Return on Investment, and Value. If we spend 10 times more than we are now, is the security going to be 10 times better? Whats the amount we can spend that is efficient without compromising the security? Again outside Weibo, I cannot tell you of any other incidents that can remotely be considered "terrorism". The people who hate O&G are mostly peaceful anti-war folk, so I don't see their threat as growing in any way.

I always look at government spending decisions as decisions that will effect mine and yours and everyone else's taxes. I don't like paying taxes, so I'd like to pay the minimum possible. And the best way to do that is maximize the efficiency of government spending.

Well if you've never heard of any incidents I guess we can cancel all security.

Have you ever heard of any problems at Parliment?
Do you think security there is unnecessary?

Have you ever heard of any problems at our nuclear facilities?
Do you think security there is unnecessary?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So never, not once, in the history of Canada since the CFIA, has there been any issues with food contamination or other issues? Thats like saying the SEC is there to protect American investors, so there must never be securities fraud.

The CFIA has also prevented MANY food contamination issues. Which is exactly why they exist. Preventive measures to help protect Canadians.

Its mind boggling that you don't see that.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

If you laid off the hyperbole than you would be taken seriously.

This thread is starting to mirror cbc.ca comments. I'm just waiting for someone to mention G20 and fake lakes, F35s, and Mega Prisons.

i don't believe it is hyperbole. slowly and surely i am confident that what i describe will come to pass, in some form, if people keep their heads in the sand. they have us were they want us, which is begging for them to provide solutions for things they have caused. it's like chickens asking a fox how to best guard themselves from the fox.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Just to do a little test, what criteria would you use to determine why you would view eliminating food protections as justifiable?

I don't think we should.
I think it's prudent to have those safeguards in place.

What you don't understand is that I was using hyperbole, sarcasm, and a mirror to your own argument to show the inconsistency in your argument.

So just do do a little test, what criteria would you use to determine why you would view eliminating protection of nuclear facilites as justfiiable.
You've said you don't think it's necessary to protect the O&G industry because there has been only a few minor acts that could be considered terrorism.

Well I don't know of ANY acts of terrorism directed at our nuclear facilities. Do you?

If you don't then you must either be in favour of eliminating protection for that industry, or you must be incredibly incosistent in your views on what is/isn't prudent or necessary.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Right the CFIA has prevented many things, which is great. And to date, whatever they are doing to protect the oilsands has worked pretty well too. All I'm asking for is evidence to justify spending more on something. Thats all. Nothing more, nothing less. Show me its needed and I'll support. Say "Trust Us We Need It" and I will not.

To put it simply, if someone making an investment pitch said they needed X dollars for capital, but only said "Just trust us, you'll get a great return" and didn't offer evidence to justify the investment, would you invest? If so, cool, just don't complain when you get took.

[WCan_Kid]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So why aren't we doing everything in our power to protect farms from attacks?

What are they going to do? Tip a cow, knock over a silo, create crop circles?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by WCan_Kid

What are they going to do? Tip a cow, knock over a silo, create crop circles?

No, keep the cows standing. It's defense, duh...

[Senator Clay Davis]

Again we, I would assume, are already spending money to protect the oilsands. This is talking about spending more. Is it really so wrong that anytime the government wants to increase spending that I expect them to have a justification for it beyond trust us, we need it?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

i don't believe it is hyperbole. slowly and surely i am confident that what i describe will come to pass, in some form, if people keep their heads in the sand. they have us were they want us, which is begging for them to provide solutions for things they have caused. it's like chickens asking a fox how to best guard themselves from the fox.

I don't see where free speech is being muzzled. I think there are some justifiable concerns regarding eco-terrorism. It wasn't even a decade ago people were lighting Vail ski hill on fire. No one is painting the entire environmental movement as dangerous, it's the people who are nuts and use this issue to act. Considering the ease to which the Greenpeace activists managed to get into Suncor's mine, I don't think increased security is a bad thing.

[troutman]

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Again we, I would assume, are already spending money to protect the oilsands. This is talking about spending more. Is it really so wrong that anytime the government wants to increase spending that I expect them to have a justification for it beyond trust us, we need it?

It's funny that the small gov, less tax, 'repubs' want to cut all costs...

Except when it comes to oil. Then it's spend spend spend.

But they are obviously small gov. When it's not them.

God, so transparent.

[WCan_Kid]

Originally Posted by Daradon

No, keep the cows standing. It's defense, duh...

That's the first phase of the terrorist attack, I guess, eliminate the defenses so they can create terrifying crop circles.

[mikey_the_redneck]

I think this is overkill.

It's along the same lines as having the TSA grope your genitals before boarding a plane for "security" reasons, ....even though statistically you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning.

There's always a terrorist hiding around every corner to justify spending endless tax money on security.