I have a couple of
questions about all of this "Terrible Terrorist Plot Stopped in
Toronto!!!!" stuff. I have been appalled and astounded at what I have seen
the last couple of days, not only from the Canadian "security"
people, but from the Canadian media.
Not for the first
time, but you in the media have really gone to new depths this time. I don't
think I've seen or heard a sane, rational word since YOU started this whole
thing -- it's all bogeyman, bogeyman, bogeyman. Some of the rumors and crap you
people are "reporting" are nothing more than pathetic. How can any of
you call yourselves "journalists"? The lot of you have been acting
like a bunch of hysterical teenagers. Whatever small amount of credibility you
had left after 20 years of acting as the frontline for neocon propaganda has
been shot big time.
1. Why has nobody in
the media brought up a similar raid that these same people engineered a little
less than three years ago (Aug 23/03), with all the same self-congratulatory
back-patting and shouting at that time about stopping a great terrorist plot
(remember the panic about the plane flying over the Pickering reactor
OHMYGODJUSTTHINK!!!)? But within weeks all the "terrible terrorists"
were released with nothing more than some minor visa irregularities actually
uncovered (and nary a word on any front page about how or why YOU reported the
"terrorist" stories without question, no mea culpas to be found . . .
and no "investigative" stories about how all that happened -- or why.
How in god's name
did they manage to get so far out of touch with reality then to inflate some
minor visa problems into a major terrorist plot? And what have we learned since
to make us think their "work" is any better now (do we remember
Juliet O'Neill? Airbus? Vancouver?) how many police corruption cases are we
dealing with in Toronto at the moment? I've lost track . . . ? Are the Milgard
and Trustcott stories working their way through the system, etc. and etc. and
Why are the entire
Canadian media acting like Hill and Knowlton for the RCMP, etc ,here, rather
than the impartial purveyors of "all" the news they are supposed to
be? (Remember, again I remind you, stand back from the police announcements and
hysteria, which are somewhat less than impartial. There has been no violence,
no bombs, no threats, no nothing, only an apparent sting operation of some sort
(("Psst, hey kid, wanna try this pot? HAHA GOTCHA YOU'RE UNDER ARREST YOU
DAMNED POTHEAD!!!" or the clever undercover lady cops pretending to sell
sex then snatching the customers - pathetic!!)), and a lot of running around by
400 cops with big guns and flak suits handcuffing a few non-resisting kids, and
so far at least completely unproven accusations and allegations, from a very
much NON-impartial source)
If it turns out
there are no actual terrorists to worry about, then a whole lot of people who
like to strut around with guns showing what big men they are and scaring people
and sneak around reading other people's mail are suddenly out of work and have
to behave themselves, not to mention another gang of people who are hell bent
on making everybody carry some form of citizen ID card. I mean, that is to say,
these very people have done very similar "The sky is falling!!!!"
games before, and wound up with nothing but eggy faces.
Surely at least a
TINY bit of skepticism would not be out of place here. Why the huge charge of
all the media to the "Oh my god!! We almost all died from terrible terrorists!!!"
bandwagon? I just don't really get it. Unless, of course, there are ulterior
motives about keeping the Canadian people sufficiently worried about their
safety to allow various somewhat repressive laws, etc., but that would getting
into conspiracy theory territory, and we certainly wouldn't want to do that --
let's just stick with what we can see . . .
2. Almost of of
those arrested and accused of these terrible things are young people, a lot of
them just teenagers, and were "clandestinely observed" (if YOU do
this to your neighbor, you're gonna get in trouble!! - what a sick bunch of
f***s!) for months, it appears, as they talked about things the police
interpreted as "terrorist"-related (as they interpreted the poor
Pakistani trying to learn to fly three years ago and being instructed by his
instructor to pass near the Pickering reactor). And we also have to wonder how
much the "police" and everyone led them on, and perhaps, it now
appears, even lured them into buying the so-called "terrorist bombing
materials" (and this of course raises the question: what other
"undercover officers" inveigled their way into the chat rooms where
these kids were hanging around and talking about all sorts of stuff, and
encouraged talk of bombing and so on, in order to get these kids to go further
than they might have gone without such encouragement????).
But what I want to
know is why didn't somebody talk to some parents along the way here, and sit
down with some kids (which they are!), and explain to them that the things they
were doing or thinking about doing were potentially quite dangerous, and could
get them in a lot of trouble and cause a lot of damage to their community and
country they probably weren't really considering and probably really didn't
want. And if they were having problems or issues or whatever with the way
things were, there were, at least, other channels to try first, before
resorting to violence which would get them into all sorts of trouble, which
could have a lot of bad repercussions for a lot of people around them, that
they probably didn't realise?
Maybe they were
talking to some bad people, and could benefit from a bit of different talk. You
know, the intelligent Atticus Finch "treat em like adults" approach,
rather than the somewhat less intelligent, but very modern American, "We
gonna kick ass and treat em like dogs what oughtta do what they damn well told,
by god we'll show em!!!" approach? It's pretty obvious to any intelligent
person which way engenders at least a chance of mutual understanding and
respect and dialogue and a peaceful outcome all the way around, and which
ensures increased animosity and violence. Why would the cops choose the path
leading to violence and why would the media support this approach?
3. What possible
reason would the "security" forces, whatever they were, have that
they deemed it necessary to make such a spectacle out of gathering up their
suspects? No "imminent threat". No "clear and present
danger" (heh heh, we offered the kid a gun, and he took it -- so he might
have shot somebody, so we arrested him; we are so clever!!). No known group of
armed, experienced criminals ready and willing to engage in some kind of
firefight when faced with arrest. None of that, just a bunch of teenagers from
mostly good homes, according to all reports, living in the family homes, none
armed or with any history of violence (beyond police fantasies).
Why not send a
couple of normal "peace" officers to the doors of the homes in some
normal fashion, and have a chat with the suspected felon, and then if necessary
read out charges and rights, and take the accused into custody -- normal
procedure sort of stuff???? There has been NOTHING in any of the news reports
so far to indicate that this approach would not have met with complete success,
at least as far as getting the 'suspects" into custody is concerned. It
certainly would have raised a lot less attention in the media and thus eyes of
the Canadian public, and offered a lot less opportunity for everyone to go
around shouting about the "great terrorist plot" that had been
foiled. Unless, of course, that indeed was the whole point of the exercise.
4. Final rhetorical
question: Why will no mainstream Canadian media print this letter, or one like
it asking similar questions?
Hat Yai, Thailand