Time is a factor, as the initial sting has subsided. A lack of any major follow-up on American soil has contributed to a dangerously false sense of security mixed with declining interest. Homeland Security and the other agencies are doing their job, so we don't have to worry.
Watching a president refusing to even acknowledge the existence of the war, while simultaneously apologize to some of the very people we are at war with didn't help, either.
Some analysts have said recently that the likelihood of an imminent terrorist attack on North American soil had decreased due to the revolutions sweeping the Middle East and North Africa. They believe radical Islamic groups are too busy with their involvement in that situation to undertake another meaningful strike across the ocean.
This doesn't take into account the very real and growing threat of home-grown attacks by cells already located here. On any given day one can look at the back pages of their newspaper for the undersized, three line blurb about another traffic stop that yielded a surprise cache of chemicals or other various bomb-related items.
If there were to be a strike, wouldn't it make sense that it happen when the targets least expect?
That would seem logical. Also logical would be to assume that al Qaeda has continued to evolve and use 'outside the box' thinking. They know that while all of the changes in security policies and procedures implemented since 9/11 haven't been perfect (TSA), it has become increasingly difficult to execute a large-scale attack.
With the price of oil certain to rise and the global economic situation as volatile as ever, one could expect our energy infrastructure to be a prime target. That kind of blow to the economy could be devastating.
So, how could terrorists launch an attack that would inflict damage on the American economy without having to worry about heightened U.S. security? Hello, Canada.
It has been much discussed by Canadian security experts and political pundits that there are two main areas we have to pay attention to: Alberta and Quebec.
An attack in Alberta, with its oil sands, refineries, pipelines, etc., would immediately impact that U.S. economy. Their most reliable source of foreign oil would be hampered.Ultimately, terrorists could attack and cripple the American economy without even having to set foot on U.S. soil.
So the question becomes, how secure are facilities in these provinces? We can assume our national security agency CSIS is taking care of things. But when you have been witness to this, you don't maintain complete confidence.
Hopefully it won't take something as horrible as another attack for people to realise nothing has changed. We are still vulnerable, the threat remains as it has for a decade.
As one security expert said recently: "Canadians are blissfully naive about the likelihood of a terror attack on their soil, and the cataclysmic repercussions which would result."
"It truly is a question of when, not if."
1 comment :
Is it not more a question of "So What?"
Look at what the Americans have given up for the "protection" they claim they have. They live in a police state under constant surveillance, with few if any rights left, not even the right to a trial as the President can and does issue execution orders without any due process.
Look at the cost of their "security". When a Pakistani and U.S. citizen tried to firebomb Times Square it was less than an a couple hours before the security apparatus knew everything about him and began tracking him in real time. Was it because he was under investigation, special surveillance?
No it was because all Americans are under surveillance, all the time.
Every movement in public is recorded, including cell phone and internet use, and that information is instantly and constantly available with no delays of due process, rights of privacy, or court permissions.
They may have security but the price has been nothing less than everything their forefathers talked about, fought for and were working towards.
Why would we wish to emulate that?
Is it not better to decide our own security? To decide that people should have some rights and freedoms, including the freedom to move about without restriction until due process has determined otherwise?
Should we improve security at industrial sites? Of course but significantly? Not likely needed.
Would it not be a better use of limited resources to confront those that would encourage attacks against us? Is it not better to stand up to the ROC when they vilify us? To call out the US intelligence agencies when they use groups like US TIDE to funnel money to Canadian environmental groups?
Should we not use already existing anti-corruption laws to charge and expose Aboriginal politicians and leaders who accept money from international groups attempting to undermine Canadian systems?
No doubt our industry could be shut down but it would take a coordinated attack against multiple targets to have the impact claimed.
The effect of these attacks are already built into the system, as I write this we have a major oil sands facility completely off line, no production, 100,000bbls lost after an explosion and fire, and a major upgrader at Lloydminister running at 50% after a similar incident. Not to mention the loss of production at various minor sites due to fires and explosions.
The number of sites needing to be attacked is very significant if one wants devastation.
In fact it likely isn't possible to create the claimed devastation with attacks alone. It wasn't the destruction of a couple buildings or the death of a few thousand people that destroyed the Nation that the U.S.A. was or could be.
It was their fear.
We need not fear terrorist attacks, only our response to them.
Post a Comment