|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
gay in korea
Joined: 13 Jan 2010
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:55 am Post subject: Hypothetical: Terrorist attack during Vancouver games... |
|
|
So here's a hypothetical situation:
Terrorist (Islamic) attack during the Vancouver winter Olympics. What should Canada's response be? What should the world's response be?
I would actually like to focus on Canada's response, but I think the global response would also need to be addressed. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sadly, that is a good question.
The reality is a good question. I could happen.
The ideal, in my opinion, is to do everything possible (and I'm sure it is being done) to prevent it from being successful. If it should happen, the best response is to minimize it and continue on with life. After taking all reasonable precautions, continue on with life and ignore the disruptions as much as possible. Don't give them the satisfaction of upsetting normal life any more than is absolutely necessary. Above all, do not reward the criminals with overdue attention and validation. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why do you feel the need to specify an "Islamic" attack on the Olympics? Even if Muslim terrorists are the most plausible candidates for such an attack(Atlanta '96 notwithstanding), how would the religion of the perpetrators make a difference in how the repsonse goes down? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Edit: My computer is having trouble with the letter 't' tonight. I edited to add where appropriate.
Sadly, that is a good question.
The reality is [it] a good question. I[t] could happen.
The ideal, in my opinion, is to do everything possible (and I'm sure it is being done) to prevent it from being successful. If it should happen, the best response is to minimize it and continue on with life. After taking all reasonable precautions, continue on with life and ignore the disruptions as much as possible. Don't give them the satisfaction of upsetting normal life any more than is absolutely necessary. Above all, do not reward the criminals with overdue attention and validation.
Last edited by Ya-ta Boy on Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
gay in korea
Joined: 13 Jan 2010
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand wrote: |
Why do you feel the need to specify an "Islamic" attack on the Olympics? Even if Muslim terrorists are the most plausible candidates for such an attack(Atlanta '96 notwithstanding), how would the religion of the perpetrators make a difference in how the repsonse goes down? |
Simple, I was equating it to the ongoing conflicts. Canada is slated to withdraw next year from Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan are supposedly progressing toward withdrawal. So it impacts the current 'war on terror' with the target/perpetrators being linked to the same global movement.
It also needs to be specified because if it's an FLQ type attack, the scenario is radically different.
But if you want to postulate about a FLQ or Western separatists attack, go right ahead.
this question came to me while reading the other thread about the US army and deficits; which are related to islamic terrorism. That's why I asked. Though I have to say the fact that I need to explain this I find a bit troubling. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
beck's
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Canada's role in Afghanistan is not at issue. France is not fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq and yet "disaffected youths" torch cars in the banlieu on a fairly regular basis.
Islamic jihadists are intent on imposing Sharia law and establishing a caliphate. It is a two pronged attack. The first is by violence, suicide bombings etc. The second is cultural and includes, most importantly, attacks on freedom of expression a la Rushdie, Van Gogh and the Danish cartoonists.
The jihadists expect and have been correct in this so far that the west's belief in multiculturalism and tolerance, combined with political correctness, will allow the cultural attacks to be successful.
IMO, if Vancouver is attacked, the perpetrators should be interrogated to the max until they give up the names of all those involved. Then they should first be imprisoned and then deported along with their families and any imams who encouraged them in their acts. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Imagine if a local Canadian, angry over losing his job, got into a large truck on his last day of work and ploughed through a crowd, killing hundreds. Would handling that situation be a hard question? No, we all know what would happen: he'd be arrested if possible and delt with in accordance with the law. We have systems for handling criminal behavior, we need merely apply them. If a terrorist strikes during the Olympics (or at any other time):
1) Attempt to prevent it by any legal means possible, just like you would with any other crime.
2) Attempt to apprehend the perpetrators, just like you would with any other crime.
3) Assuming you are able to apprehend the perpetrators, try them in a court of law like any other criminal, and attempt to gather information from them using legal, humane means just as you would with any other criminal who possessed useful information. Use that information to prevent future attacks as best possible
4) Under no circumstances torture people or go to war over it, and do not violate anyones legal or human rights at any time.
I really don't think it's difficult at all. Calm, reasonable, humane, legal responses are the best way to handle such incidents. Keep things in perspective. Don't get emotional and irrational. Don't violate your principles. Don't start declaring wars on concepts. Just handle it like you would any other serious crime. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009 Location: Lost in Translation
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
Imagine if a local Canadian, angry over losing his job, got into a large truck on his last day of work and ploughed through a crowd, killing hundreds. Would handling that situation be a hard question? No, we all know what would happen: he'd be arrested if possible and delt with in accordance with the law. We have systems for handling criminal behavior, we need merely apply them. If a terrorist strikes during the Olympics (or at any other time) |
Fox,
While I could support your 4 point system, you really don�t see a difference between an individual�s random act of violence and a group�s coordinated attack on an international event?
Also, and I�m not sure how exactly I feel about this myself, but if a person, as you say, kills hundreds of people, should that be treated differently? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why would a terrorist attack happen in Canada? According to the people with maple leaf flags on their backpacks, "Everyone loves Canadians," even relatives of dead and injured people in Afghanistan. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patrick Bateman wrote: |
Fox wrote: |
Imagine if a local Canadian, angry over losing his job, got into a large truck on his last day of work and ploughed through a crowd, killing hundreds. Would handling that situation be a hard question? No, we all know what would happen: he'd be arrested if possible and delt with in accordance with the law. We have systems for handling criminal behavior, we need merely apply them. If a terrorist strikes during the Olympics (or at any other time) |
Fox,
While I could support your 4 point system, you really don�t see a difference between an individual�s random act of violence and a group�s coordinated attack on an international event? |
I see a difference with regards to the action itself, but I feel said difference is ultimately irrelevent to the procedure you should follow in response to it. After all, the angry Canadian could have been a terrorist plan too; you don't know until after you've followed through.
Patrick Bateman wrote: |
Also, and I�m not sure how exactly I feel about this myself, but if a person, as you say, kills hundreds of people, should that be treated differently? |
Killing hundreds might result in a more severe sentence, but it should not result in procedural differences with regards to how we handle the criminal investigation. Panicking and throwing away freedoms and values to "increase security" in response to tragic incidents is the real victory for a terrorist. This is why "failed" terrorist attacks like the underwear bomber can still ultimately result in success for the terrorists in question.
Remaining firm in our commitment to our values and freedoms and handling tragic incidents -- terrorist or no -- in a dispassionate, rational, and just fashion in accordance with the law is our greatest defense against terrorism. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
gay in korea
Joined: 13 Jan 2010
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was going to say something along the same lines as Bateman.
If you look at the OK City incident it did NOT produce the same kind of reaction as 9/11 or even the cole or Africa attacks. He was part of a group of people who wanted to overthrow the government, which still exists to this day, but by comparison little to nothing has been done about that type of group in the US. This is why I thought it necessary to say islamic terrorism. The reaction spawned would be much different--- though, I would say if some Albertan separatist did a Timothy McVeigh, you would see a swift and decisive change in power in Canadian parliament. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009 Location: Lost in Translation
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
I see a difference with regards to the action itself, but I feel said difference is ultimately irrelevent to the procedure you should follow in response to it. |
I agree that the majority of actions taken in response should be the same, but not all. If it were to be discovered that the case of the Canadian was an instance of a person driven to an act of rage, thus acting alone and not premeditated, then that would warrant a completely different response, as far as future prevention, then if a terrorist group takes responsibility for an attack.
What I have in mind is more intelligence based, and I do not condone the use of violence in practical (as opposed to hypothetical) situations.
Fox wrote: |
After all, the angry Canadian could have been a terrorist plan too; you don't know until after you've followed through. |
Well, I guess the problem with this is you gave the background information on the Canadian where it wasn�t given in the original, blanket �terrorist� scenario.
Fox wrote: |
Killing hundreds might result in a more severe sentence, but it should not result in procedural differences with regards to how we handle the criminal investigation. Panicking and throwing away freedoms and values to "increase security" in response to tragic incidents is the real victory for a terrorist. This is why "failed" terrorist attacks like the underwear bomber can still ultimately result in success for the terrorists in question. |
While I definitely agree with this, there is still a part of me that cannot fight one caveat to it. Let�s say it is established that a group of people were responsible for a terrorist attack. I think it is within a country�s right to monitor certain activities of people active in that group. Some may see that as a violation of a country�s principles though. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patrick Bateman wrote: |
I agree that the majority of actions taken in response should be the same, but not all. If it were to be discovered that the case of the Canadian was an instance of a person driven to an act of rage, thus acting alone and not premeditated, then that would warrant a completely different response, as far as future prevention, then if a terrorist group takes responsibility for an attack.
What I have in mind is more intelligence based, and I do not condone the use of violence in practical (as opposed to hypothetical) situations. |
Yes, but that possibility is included in my proposed general response here:
3) Assuming you are able to apprehend the perpetrators, try them in a court of law like any other criminal, and attempt to gather information from them using legal, humane means just as you would with any other criminal who possessed useful information. Use that information to prevent future attacks as best possible
If it turns out it was a man driven purely by rage, the information gathering step would involve very little. If it turned out it was a coordinated terrorist attack, the information step would be more in depth, obviously. Either way, though, we can apply a general rule regardless of the specific situation.
Patrick Bateman wrote: |
While I definitely agree with this, there is still a part of me that cannot fight one caveat to it. Let�s say it is established that a group of people were responsible for a terrorist attack. I think it is within a country�s right to monitor certain activities of people active in that group. Some may see that as a violation of a country�s principles though. |
It depends on the "group" you're talking about. If the group is, say, al Qaeda, then yes, it would be reasonable to monitor said group, as said group has the stated purpose of terrorist activity, and being a member of said group de facto results in involvement with terrorism. If, on the other hand, said group is Muslims, then I think it wrong to monitor people based on membership in that group. The overwhelming majority of Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism, and being a Muslim does not result in de facto involvement in terrorism. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009 Location: Lost in Translation
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
Either way, though, we can apply a general rule regardless of the specific situation. |
I am just a stickler for clarity, so when it seemed like you were saying a random act of violence is on the same level as a terrorist threat, it just seemed like a potential case of an over-inflation of the use of the concept terrorist; which I think you've cleared up.
I was just saying that while the rules may be the same, the application of those rules cannot be. Hence why I brought up the application of the final principle.
Fox wrote: |
It depends on the "group" you're talking about. If the group is, say, al Qaeda, then yes, it would be reasonable to monitor said group, as said group has the stated purpose of terrorist activity, and being a member of said group de facto results in involvement with terrorism. If, on the other hand, said group is Muslims, then I think it wrong to monitor people based on membership in that group. The overwhelming majority of Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism, and being a Muslim does not result in de facto involvement in terrorism. |
Of course the concept of "group" would have to be as localized as possible. I not one for mass hysterics or witch-hunts. Luckily, such silly people tend to like to put themselves into such silly, little, clear-cut groups. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|