Terrorism in London England: What would we do if something like this happened in Toronto?

[x-grunt]

We would sound those old nuclear sirens

Heh, I remember those. Spooky sound.

True, I mean, Vancouver is ONLY our largest seaport on the very lucrative Pacific Rim.  Edmonton ONLY has just about every drop of oil produced in Northern Alberta flow through it...Nope, no useful targets out here, good luck, TO, isn't it great to be important?

Lots of strategically valuable targets, but Toronto is the most internationally visible. I mean, an attack in GB on Hull or Rosyth just doesn't have the oomph of an attack on London, now does it? Toronto is the financial center of Canada, bonus points for a terror target. So I could just see someone thinking an attack here would cause much psychological damage and potentially disrupt the markets. Morale and confidence are the true targets of a terror attack, not infrastructure.

As an aside, Toronto  is the target of much arrogance and snobbery, god knows why, in other parts of Canada. Why is that? I can almost imagine some SOB somewhere thinking " I hope they get bombed, serve those Toronto types right".

 

[Manimal]

hitting a port, or oil is just not there style, they have only gone for populated areas with high body counts. it they wanted to really disrupt things, they would have taken those plains in to a nuke plant, or done damage that way, but they are going to easy hits, with good population.

oil or a port would be a better target, and i'm sure other countries would go for that, but these terrorists aren't taking those targets.

 

[LCIS227]

We are and we're not.  Canada is so small on the world stage, and we matter so little, that we're not a likely target...we wouldn't be as big a media hit as if they hit New York.  Given that most people outside the country can't tell us apart from Americans (when we ourselves can, mostly)....why would they choose to hit our soft underbelly?

Sure, they could.  Sure we're not safe, and we're not prepared to handle it...but would it be as big a world story as New York or London?

I don't know how valid my opinion is , but what if after many attacks on the US and UK the terrorists come to the conclusion that attacking these guys is not the way to go. That to really pressure the US and UK etc... they attack their allies, like Canada, France, Spain, etc ... creating political pressure on the big powers.

I mean, how would you like having your country bombed for the actions of other countries. I'm sure this would create some friction between the countries and even sanctions etc ...

 

[-rb]

hitting a port, or oil is just not there style, they have only gone for populated areas with high body counts. it they wanted to really disrupt things, they would have taken those plains in to a nuke plant, or done damage that way, but they are going to easy hits, with good population.

oil or a port would be a better target, and i'm sure other countries would go for that, but these terrorists aren't taking those targets.

You sure about that one? Google "Iraq attack + Oil pipeline" and let me know what you come up with. If you think those we'll be fighting at home are much different than those coalition forces are currently engaging in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere I think you'd be mistaken.

It seems to me (IMHO) that the insurgents are taking advantage of targets of opportunity, whatever they may be...subways, kidnapping, oil pipelines etc etc etc.

cheers.

 

[TCBF]

"We would sound those old nuclear sirens"

- Long gone.  Disconnected or removed.  Some still used in small towns for Volunterr FD recalls.

Tom

 

[Manimal]

You sure about that one? Google "Iraq attack + Oil pipeline" and let me know what you come up with. If you think those we'll be fighting at home are much different than those coalition forces are currently engaging in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere I think you'd be mistaken.

It seems to me (IMHO) that the insurgents are taking advantage of targets of opportunity, whatever they may be...subways, kidnapping, oil pipelines etc etc etc.

cheers.

insurgents are hitting those. but the terrorists are not making those attacks on foreign soil.
there are two different objectives between insurgency and terror.

 

[dutchie]

The only real 'calling card' of Al-Qaeda is it's success, mainly because they hit the indefensible targets. Every Canadian city has multiple 'acceptable' targets. Off the top of my head, they could do the following in Vancouver:

Truck bomb on a BC Ferry, truck bomb underneath the Pan Pacific/Canada Place, suicide/homicide bomber at a Canuck game, Skytrain bomb, truck bomb in the Massey Tunnel (tunnel under the Fraser River for those that don't know), etc, etc... They all have the potential for huge casualties, they all involve indefensible targets, and all could be done with minimal technology. As well, all of the targets involve 'iconic' parts of Vancouver. I am sure every city has a list like this or longer.

Don't think the threat is just in TO - that is what they want you to think! They will hit where they can suceed, where they can kill lots of people, where they can cause lots of fear, and where there will be lots of media coverage. That includes a lot fo places outside of TO. That's the problem - the very nature of their target selection is that it is impossible or nearly impossible to prevent these attacks. These animals won't hit us when we expect it, where we expect it. It will be somewhat of a surprise (but hopefully not a shock).

 

[-rb]

insurgents are hitting those. but the terrorists are not making those attacks on foreign soil.
there are two different objectives between insurgency and terror.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. With a large number of foreign fighters in Iraq behind many attacks it seems that they are moving to the fight, wherever it may be. My guess is that trend will only continue as the war on terror migrates west (moreso than it already has), in to North America and certainly in to Canada as well.

cheers.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

      Personally, I have no ideas as to the wheres, whys, and hows about an attack on Canada. All i can say is, we won't know til it's too late, many will die, and there will be a major finger pointing fest at the government/military/police service/whoever that "let this happen to us."

    I think the biggest thing the terrorists can use against us is our complacency over this issue. You have the people that actually are concerned about preparing for an attack . They are viewed as your typical "the sky is falling" types and are not taken seriously. On the other hand, you have the "it can never happen to us " crowd that will collectively screw us over in the end.

    These two types of Canadians are going to eventually turn into the "why did we let this happen to us "  crowd and then the finger pointing begins.All the while, AQ is sitting in a cave, laughing and watching it all unfold on CBC.

    Call me a skeptical youngin (or worse) but this is how i see it playing out unless something is done soon. Here's hoping.

 

[civvy3840]

Toronto would be a prefered site because Ottawa is in ON too. and many many people see TO as the center of canada.... vancouver is too far to one end. although immigration is high there. but TO is like one of the most diverse cities in the world..... edmonton...too cold, monreal, i just don't think so, i think the whole speration think would lead them away from hitting there....and the fact it's the french part of canada, it's a unique target, but again, i don't think it fits the bill. it'll be TO, subways are on the menu, but, i think something like the skydome would be a big hit for them. filled up on game night, (note all the big attacks come once a year around summer/fall) it's a land mark, and the body count would be high. heck, why not hit them both.... i could see that.
and i fullly admit i could be bias to TO being hit cause i'm from this area, but it seems like the most likely Canadian target.

edit, and i forgot to point out, we know that there were Aq's living in TO before 9/11

Toronto is at a risk but then again I think that most major cities are. Montreal would be a good place for an attack, lots of people, subways, etc..., Why would the terrorists care if Quebec wants to seperate from Canada?Rright now they are still apart of Canada. However I do agree that Toronto is one of the cities at the most risk of an attack.

 

[muskrat89]

To think that any town or City is safe, is foolish. I can say with some certainty that these groups have considered "attacking the heartland", at least here in the US. Imagine randomly picking cafes, grocery stores, swimming pools, etc., in small towns...... The psychological effects may be even more terrifying than hitting a big city where, to a degree, it was "expected".

 

[Polish Possy]

http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=db334208-cdb2-43b4-bf35-e27693b1163d


this was just on the news


And Canada is Number 5 on Terrorist hit list and the other four ....have Now been hit....I feel that what has happend in Britain is a horrible act these terrorists comited towards fellow humans ...

This only strengthens my Reasons and Beliefs for wanting to serve

 

[Black Watch]

sounds like Prime minister St-Laurent... We are a probable target because we give uncle sam raw materials. . .

 

[civvy3840]

sounds like Prime minister St-Laurent... We are a probable target because we give uncle sam raw materials. . .

That and we are helping in afghanistan.

 

[McG]

Canadians complacent
McLellan: Ability to bounce back hinges on psychological preparation, minister says
Mohammed Adam
Ottawa Citizen; with files from The Canadian Press; CanWest News Service
(Printed: Edmonton Journal; July 12, 2005)

TORONTO - Canadians are not psychologically prepared for a terrorist attack even though they are vulnerable to London-style bombings, Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan said Monday.

Speaking to reporters after addressing about 1,000 delegates at an international disaster conference in Canada's largest city, McLellan said whether through education by government or the media, it is imperative to get Canadians to take the threat of terrorism seriously.

McLellan said a country that is psychologically prepared for terrorism -- as Britain proved last week -- is more likely to quickly bounce back.

The minister said while Canadians accept the possibility of a pandemic on their soil, they still believe terrorist attacks are restricted to foreign lands.

"I do not believe that Canadians are as psychologically prepared for a terrorist attack as I think probably we all should be," she said. "I think we have perhaps for too long thought that these were things that happened somewhere else. But Canadians are not immune to what we see happen in London, Madrid, 9/11. We are not immune to that kind of terrorist violence."

Ironically, McLellan also confirmed what many experts have long cited as a major reason for Canadian complacency: a lack of political leadership.

The minister said that until last January, federal and provincial ministers responsible for the safety of Canadians had not met in 11 years. Her department organized the January meeting.

"It was rather shocking. I was stunned by that," she admitted. But experts say it is difficult for Canadians to take these threats seriously when their political leaders don't seem bothered.

McLellan said tremendous strides have been made in Canada's emergency readiness, but added the country has to learn from countries that have experienced terrorism.

The minister said lack of psychological preparation can set a country back in a time of crisis. She said the shock of a terrorist attack could frighten people into rash action against a minority group, prevent them from going to work and seriously undermine the country's economic well-being.

McLellan said she was particularly impressed by the calmness and fortitude Londoners displayed in the face of the public transit bombings. She believes Canadians can learn important lessons from the British. "They were interviewed in pubs saying 'We will not let this change our lives'; actors in the west end saying 'We will go back to work, we will not let these people force us off the stage,' '' she said. "They were sending a message that 'We are psychologically stronger than anything you can throw at us.' "

McLellan said no one wants to scare Canadians into living in fear, because "fear can lead to paralysis."

"(But) we need to make sure that we all understand the context of the world in which we live. Bad things can happen and bad things do happen," she said.

Meanwhile, Canadian business leader Perrin Beatty will warn today that slow border crossings leave the economies of both Canada and the U.S. vulnerable to being held "hostage" by terrorists.

"What other two nations would leave their economies hostage in this way? Governments must act now," said Beatty, president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, in speaking notes for an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today.

. . . but . . .

Most Canadians expect terrorist attack on home soil
Simon Doyle
CanWest News Service
(Printed: Edmonton Journal; Saturday, July 16, 2005)

OTTAWA -- A large majority of Canadians say it is only a matter of time before a Canadian city faces an attack like the bombings in London, but they also say Canada should support the U.S. and stay the course in Afghanistan, according to a new poll for CanWest/Global.

The poll seems to bring to light some Canadian feelings about terrorist threats in the wake of four suicide bombings in London. The bombings brought attention to Canada as one of the last al-Qaeda targets not yet hit.

When asked if it is only a matter of time before Canada experienced a terrorist attack like London's, 63 per cent of those surveyed chose "agree" and 35 per cent chose "disagree."

The poll also suggests this sentiment is at least as strong in Canada as in the U.S. In a similar poll the Associated Press released Friday, 57 per cent of Americans thought another attack was only a matter of time.

The poll said 89 per cent of respondents believed the threats of Osama bin Laden should be taken seriously by Canadian officials, while 10 per cent said they should not be taken seriously.

In a similar fashion, 74 per cent said Canada should not be intimidated by the terrorist threats and should instead continue to support the U.S. and "stay the course" in Afghanistan.

And while many expect a terrorist attack, the poll also suggested that many did not think it would affect them directly. Fifty-two per cent of Canadians said they are "not worried" and 44 per cent said they are "worried" about a terrorist attack.

"Probably they're thinking that, since this threat from Osama bin Laden is fairly old, and also that Canada's experience in Afghanistan is not exactly recent ... there's the possibility of a terrorist attack, but it hasn't happened yet. So there's a bit of complacency associated with all of this," said Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos-Reid.

On Thursday, Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, announced that Canada will send additional troops to Afghanistan, including Canada's elite fighting force, JTF2, as part of a deployment to target terrorists. Canada has about 700 troops in Afghanistan and will send another 1,500 within about six months. Many of the soldiers in the next deployment are based in Edmonton.

Twenty-two per cent of poll respondents said Canada should pull its troops out of Afghanistan immediately.

 

[McG]

Canada urged to launch security action plan
Public education needed, ex-police chief claims
Mohammed Adam
National Post; CanWest News Service
(Printed: Edmonton Journal; Wednesday, July 13, 2005)

TORONTO - Ontario's commissioner of emergency management called for an organized public awareness campaign to waken Canadians out of a sense of security around the threat of terrorism.

Speaking at an international conference on disaster management Tuesday, Julian Fantino said with terrorists increasingly targeting people, not structures, counter-terrorism agencies must adopt techniques that have been successful in fighting crime.

For example, ads such as those used to educate viewers about the risks of drinking and driving could work to convince Canadians that the risk of terrorism at home is distinct, if not significant, the former Toronto police chief said.

Despite counter-terrorism measures which have kept Canada safe so far, there is still a gap in the overall strategy, Fantino said.

"The gap is, we don't have the public adequately informed about the kinds of things they should be looking for, what should be reported and the mechanism by which those things are reported," Fantino said after addressing a conference on disaster management.

Fantino and other security experts at the conference also said that a potential attack in Canada will likely be on people at a mall or mass transit station, not symbols such as Parliament Hill or the CN Tower.

"The terrorists have patience and persistence, and you will get hit at some point in time. But it will not be an attack on the CN Tower or something like that. It is going to be an attack on people, on innocents, not combatants," said Ty Fairman, a former FBI counterterrorism agent.

In the wake of last week's deadly attack on London commuters, Canadian officials are scrambling to find ways to protect this country's vulnerable mass transit system. But there is no plan and the advice from politicians is no better than a call for vigilance.

Indeed, in Ottawa on Tuesday, Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan said every Canadian has a responsibility to help protect transit infrastructure from terrorist attacks. McLellan said that doesn't mean "we're all out there like little spies," but that people who see suspicious packages shouldn't take them for granted and walk away.

"Talk to the conductor, talk to the transit officer in the car and say, 'look, I don't know whether this is someone's lunch or whether it's something else, but it's been sitting under this seat and nobody seems to claim it,' " she said. "We all have a responsibility to do those things."

Fantino said governments and security agencies have to be practical about fighting terrorism and the way to do it is to involve Canadians the way citizens are involved in fighting crime.

"We've done a great job with crime prevention, traffic safety, the whole notion of drinking and driving. We need to get the public onside. We have to apply some of the same techniques and strategies," said Fantino.

He said campaigns on crime prevention and drinking and driving have succeeded because people see the danger and are willing to help reduce it. But the problem with the war on terror is that Canadians haven't bought into it and don't believe the threat is real, he said.

"You have to first get the public to appreciate the vulnerability. You have to get people to believe that they are vulnerable," he said.

 

[Manimal]

The terrorists have patience and persistence, and you will get hit at some point in time. But it will not be an attack on the CN Tower or something like that. It is going to be an attack on people, on innocents, not combatants," said Ty Fairman, a former FBI counterterrorism agent

 

[mariomike]

Update.

The Coroner's Inquests report into the 2005 London terrorist transportation bombings was released only yesterday.
FYI, if interested:
http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/docs/orders/rule43-report.pdf

Related:
Topic: "Toronto tests response to terrorist attacks"  ( 5 pages ):
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/34773.0.html

I have no doubt Toronto Emergency Services will be studying this report with interest. Hopefully, the new mayor will as well.