Further to the earlier post, there were in fact two Canadian Hornets, not one. From NORAD:

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. [more here] — Out of an abundance of caution, The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) [CF webpage here] diverted two Canadian CF-18’s from the 425 Tactical Fighter Squadron out of Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, Quebec, to track a civilian aircraft determined to be an aircraft of interest as it flew into and over Canadian airspace. The civilian aircraft was passed to two U.S. F-15’s from the 104th Fighter Wing at Barnes Air National Guard Base, Mass., as it transited into U.S. airspace and to its ultimate destination at JFK airport where it landed without incident. The Canadian and U.S. fighters were under the continuous control of NORAD.

NORAD’s role – in close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners – is to prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the U.S. and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America.

NORAD is the bi-national Canadian and American command that is responsible for the air defense of North America and maritime warning. The command has three subordinate regional headquarters: the Alaskan NORAD Region at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska; the Canadian NORAD Region at Winnipeg, Manitoba; and the Continental NORAD Region at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla. The command is poised both tactically and strategically in our nation’s capital to provide a multilayered defense to detect, deter and prevent potential threats flying over the airspace of the United States and Canada.

Great circle route map (via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs):

Mark
Ottawa

A Hornet:

Some of what they do:

A commercial passenger jet that was also carrying cargo from Yemen was escorted from the Canadian border to New York City by two military fighter jets, U.S. officials said. The officials said there was no known threat associated with the plane, but it was escorted to John F. Kennedy International Airport as a precaution…

John Cornelia, a spokesman for U.S. [actually Canadian too] North American Aerospace Defense Command, said the airliner was escorted by a Canadian fighter to the U.S. border, where two U.S. fighters took over. U.S. fighter jets routinely escort airliners when there may be a problem in order to observe the aircraft and be prepared to take any action if necessary.”..

The Hornet would be from Bagotville. Our fighters out west performed a similar mission this spring at Vancouver, video here.

More on our fighters’ intercept mission generally:

F-35s: Bilge from Byers

Mark
Ottawa

…but is Sharia law in itself an existential threat?  Excerpts from a piece by Reuel Marc Gerecht (via Terry Glavin, read this relevant post):

…I’ve spent a lot of time sitting with Shiite and Sunni clerics who were teaching Sharia and opining about daily life, and such schooling didn’t strike me then, and still doesn’t, as a good laboratory for terrorists, which is why, I suspect, so few terrorists have had any proper clerical training. A rigorous Islamic education may make you a killjoy, but it doesn’t make you a terrorist. If the empirical record tells us anything, it’s that a skimpy Islamic education combined with a mediocre—even a decent—Western education seems much more likely to produce an explosive mix.

…we shouldn’t see enemies where they are not. The Holy Law is, as it’s always been, what Muslims make of it. In the titanic struggle within Islam between those who fear modernity and those who embrace it, we would do well not to make the clergy our foes. They will go, as they always have done, where the majority of Muslims take them. Like Ayatollah Khomeini before him, bin Laden once thought that most Muslims would rise up to defend his cause. Both gentlemen were wrong. Westerners and most Muslims may not (yet) share with the same intensity and priority that many values, but we share enough to provide considerable hope that the “clash of civilizations” will end, as Grand Ayatollah Sistani no doubt wants it to, in a suspicious, at times tense, but peaceful and prosperous co-existence.

Reuel Marc Gerecht is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at The Weekly Standard.

Please check the three links immediately above before commenting.  And there is still…

A very good question relating to some Muslims

Mark
Ottawa

A letter in the Toronto Star.  Good on them for publishing it; one wonders if the Globe and Mail would have:

Double standard on Afghanistan

Re: Afghan governor among 20 killed in mosque blast, Oct. 9

A “massive bomb blast” in a “packed mosque” during Friday prayers in Taluqan, Afghanistan, kills 20 and wounds 35. It is just the latest in a long list of Taliban and Al Qaeda attacks against mosques and religious processions, many aimed specifically at minority Ahmadi or Shiite Muslims.

In court, the Times Square Bomber [see 3) here] calls himself a “soldier of God” who says he was “radicalized” by U.S. drone attacks — attacks seeking out the very people who bomb packed mosques. So, he is a soldier in service of those who would kill Muslims at prayer? Why will no one be radicalized by the mosque bombing in Taluqan [see second part of this post]?

A U.S. preacher threatens to burn a Qur’an and many in the Muslim world take to the streets in protest while Imams thunder about “Islamophobia” and we agonize about our “intolerance.” The preacher is easily shouted down and becomes a nobody again in no time. Everybody in the Muslim world goes back to sleep. Even a mosque bombing doesn’t wake them up.

However, if a U.S. drone had mistakenly hit that mosque in Taluqan, well, you can be sure there would be a swift reaction of outrage. At this stage is it even worth asking why the double standard [see this relevant post]?

Tony Volpe, Toronto

Via Moby Media Updates.

Mark
Ottawa

The US and how it gets along–or rather does not–with the Paks:

1) Reading Woodward in Karachi (lengthy, well worth the read)

Is this the nail in the coffin of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship?
BY MOSHARRAF ZAIDI

…As much as supporters of the effort — both in Washington and Islamabad — may go to great pains to explain that this war is for Pakistan’s own good and that the United States is not waging a war on Pakistan, such appeals are likely to fall on deaf ears, and not just among the conspiratorial hypernationalist types.

Even among some of the most stalwart supporters of the United States, suspicion of Washington’s intentions runs deep and wide. In an account of a meeting between President Asif Ali Zardari and U.S. diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad, Woodward describes Zardari’s passionate elaboration of why he is convinced that the TTP — often called the Pakistani Taliban — are being financed and directed by the United States to weaken Pakistan so that Washington can grab Islamabad’s nukes. This kind of ridiculous suspicion of the United States is, of course, as Woodward also notes, a regional disease, with Afghan President Hamid Karzai routinely blaming the United States for supporting the insurgency. But dismissing the ridiculous without understanding its resonance is also dangerous. If this account of Zardari’s meeting with Khalilzad ever made the front page in Pakistan, Zardari, whose popularity has suffered for being a U.S. ally, would get an immediate boost. That’s how deep the suspicion runs…

Is it any surprise that Pakistanis see conflicting messages coming out of Washington? Within this deeply negative and gloomy context, Woodward’s book exposes some of the U.S. government’s contingency plans for Pakistan, including military strikes on as many as 150 suspected terrorist training sites. One conspiracy theory popular in Islamabad, which the book will no doubt feed, is that U.S. special-operations forces will one day come and take Pakistan’s beloved crown jewels — the more than 100 nuclear weapons thecountry bankrupted itself to develop…

One of the most telling accounts in the book is of Husain Haqqani, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, trying to explain to members of the Obama administration how to engage with Pakistan. After trying a number of analogies, the unflappable Haqqani finally just lays it out plainly, “Give us a little bit of respect. Don’t humiliate us publicly.”

The public humiliation of being the subject of Obama’s war, without being able to publicly acknowledge its myriad dimensions, is a pressure that is crushing Pakistan’s fragile democracy and hurting wider U.S. goals. If one of the objectives of Obama’s war was to stabilize and secure Pakistan, then, by that measure, the war is not doing well at all…

Mosharraf Zaidi has served as an advisor on international aid to Pakistan for the United Nations and European Union and writes a weekly column for Pakistan’s the News. You can find more of his writing at www.mosharrafzaidi.com.

2) America’s image problem in Pakistan

By Kalsoom Lakhani
…
Cyril Almeida, an assistant editor and columnist at Dawn [website here], echoed, “Anti-Americanism is deep and pervasive. To the uninitiated, the Pakistani desire for a U.S. visa/passport/job may seem like tacit approval of what America stands for and aspires to achieve through its foreign policy.” However, he noted, this would be a wrong assumption. “The personal (economic advantage that may be gained) is very different from the political (intense opposition to U.S. foreign policy) [see 3)]. And this contradiction is not specific to the Pakistani condition,” but is reflected elsewhere in the Muslim world.

As the use of drones continue unabated in Pakistan, and tensions are further exacerbated by news of NATO helicopters crossing into Pakistani territory killing Pakistani soldiers late last week, anti-American sentiment will only continue to rise, despite billions of dollars of aid being promised to local civil society, and despite American efforts in the recent flood disaster…

Kalsoom Lakhani is the director of Social Vision, the strategic philanthropy arm of ML Resources in Washington, D.C. She is from Islamabad, Pakistan, and blogs at CHUP, or Changing Up Pakistan.

3) One/one Pakistani-American:

Times Square bomb plotter predicts defeat of U.S.

NEW YORK — Expressing no remorse and predicting the “imminent” defeat of the United States at the hands of Muslim forces, Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad was sentenced to life in prison Tuesday for his attempt to spill blood with a homemade car bomb.

“Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun,” Shahzad, 31, warned U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum in one of several polite but chilling exchanges. “Consider me only a first droplet of the flood that will follow me.”

Shahzad — wearing a white cap, a black prison smock and longer beard and hair than he did at his June guilty plea — also for the first time complained about his post-arrest treatment at the hands of the FBI, and said he was comfortable with his fate because he saw it as the will of Allah.

“If I am given 1,000 lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah,” said Shahzad.” … Decree whatever you desire to decree, for you can only decree regarding the life of this world.”..

A naturalized American citizen from Pakistan who was living in Bridgeport, Conn., Shahzad was captured two days after his May 1 bomb attempt. He quickly confessed, telling officials that his plot had been set in motion by the Pakistani Taliban. He said he was defending Muslims and retaliating against American attacks on civilians…

Earlier, from Terry Glavin:

Who’s To Blame For Pakistan’s Agonies? ‘Hindu Zionists and American Think-Tanks.’ [more on those agonies here]

While on another front:

Taliban in high-level talks with Karzai government, sources say

Mark
Ottawa

Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post puts what I have been thinking very clearly:

Terror warnings: Be specific or be quiet

“The State Department alerts U.S. citizens to the potential for terrorist attacks in Europe. . . . Terrorists may elect to use a variety of means and weapons and target both official and private interests. U.S. citizens are reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure. Terrorists have targeted and attacked subway and rail systems, as well as aviation and maritime services. U.S. citizens should take every precaution to be aware of their surroundings and to adopt appropriate safety measures to protect themselves when traveling.”

– State Department travel alert, Oct. 3

Speaking as an American who lives in Europe, I feel it is incumbent upon me to describe what people like me do when we hear warnings like this one issued on Sunday: We do nothing.

We do nothing, first and foremost, because there is nothing that we can do…

In truth, the only people who can profit from such a warning are the officials who issue it. If something does happen, they are covered: They warned us, they told us in advance, they won’t be criticized or forced to resign. And if nothing happens, then we’ll all forget about it anyway.

Except that we don’t forget about it. Over time, these kinds of enigmatic warnings do al-Qaeda’s work for it, scaring people without cause. Without so much as lifting a finger, Osama bin Laden disrupts our sense of security and well-being. At the same time, such warnings put the U.S. government in the position of the boy who cried wolf. The more often general warnings are issued, the less likely we are to heed them. We are perhaps unsettled or unnerved, but we don’t know what to do. So we do nothing — and wish that we’d been told nothing as well.

Meanwhile, try finding this at our government’s Foreign Affairs’ website:

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is closely monitoring the security situation in Europe.

Some European governments have recently reported a higher threat from terrorism in their own countries. On October 3, 2010, the United States issued a Travel Alert advising their citizens of the potential for terrorist attacks in Europe.

A number of European countries have taken additional security measures including an increased police and security presence at tourist sites and on public transportation systems. Travellers should continue to be vigilant and maintain a high level of personal security awareness. Canadians should be aware of their surroundings at all times, monitor local news reports, follow the advice of local authorities, and take appropriate steps to ensure their personal security…

Maybe they think the warning is useless too.

Mark
Ottawa

Unless the British press has overlooked us (would be quite typical), or CSIS and the government are being terribly discrete:

British intelligence agents sent to foil attacks on Games
Britain, the United States and Australia have sent intelligence teams to India to help stop Pakistan-based groups launching a terrorist attack during the Commonwealth Games, The Daily Telegraph has learnt…

Surely we have an R2P for our athletes too?

Mark
Ottawa

Further to this post,

Muslims: Victims or…extortionists?

and to the Update thought here,

Haroon the Magnificent and “homegrown” terrorism, Take 2/”true allegiance” Update thought

it seems to me quite a few Muslims indeed want many types of “offensive” actions regarding Islam effectively to be banned in non-Muslim countries–regardless of the legality of those actions.

Yet do Christians world-wide raise the prospect of retaliatory murder and mayhem when their co-religionists are actually killed by Muslims (see here too)?  There once was a Church militant; there still appear to be mosques militant.

Mark
Ottawa

Further to this post,

Haroon the Magnificent and “homegrown” terrorism, Take 2/”true allegiance” Update thought

Thoughts along related lines from BruceR. at Flit:

…
Letter writer Masud Sheikh, in the Globe today…

Mr. Sheikh’s argument is apparently that criticism of the terrorist murderers who had just killed 56 Londoners was “morally unacceptable,” and that only when we can regard them as the same “class of citizen” as ourselves, will we have a peaceful future. Sounds like the peace of the grave to me, frankly. But hey: as the General pointed out at the time, it’s a free country.

The “scumbags” are in the middle of the post.

Mark
Ottawa

Further to this post,

Haroon the Magnificent: Terrorism by German, Italian and Japanese Canadians our fault/Plus incredibly credulous “reporting”

Terry Glavin sharpens up his keyboard:

It’s All Our Fault.

Toronto Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui’s latest attempt to establish himself as Canada’s poster boy for the delusional justifications for reactionary isolationism is quite adequately captured by his column’s headline: “To tackle domestic terrorism, end foreign wars.” Adrian McNair’s careful and effortless deconstruction of the absurd edifice Siddiqui’s relies upon to present his case is also quite adequate to show how plum crazy you’d have to be to be convinced by Siddiqui’s case.

But there is just one little nail you can pull from the structure Siddiqui builds for himself to cause the whole thing to come crashing down. Siddiqui knows this, so he has to hide it, with this: “No state can be held hostage by terrorists into changing its foreign policy. Such actors must be ferreted out, charged, convicted and jailed. . . Yet such cases should give us pause — so that we are not herded into blindly backing endless wars and occupations abroad.”..

The presumption of innocence, which Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff properly admonishes us to make, should go without saying. But while I’m on the subject, Ignatieff should also be a bit more careful to make the argument for it without grossly misrepresenting the facts [more on that and some dirty work at the keyboard]…

Poor dears. If we’d only listened to Haroon Siddiqui, none of them would have been provoked into committing their crimes in the first place, and everything would be just fine.

Update thought:  Mr Siddiqui never suggests that Canadian Muslims profoundly opposed to our Afghan mission might do the obvious thing, rather than take up terrorism against Canada.

This is a democratic country.  Such Muslims are–and have always been–free to publicly demand an immediate end to the mission (they could also join the NDP or, in Québec, the Bloc).  Instead some have chosen to punish our people rather than try to change the government’s policy.

Of course in making an effort to change the policy a rationale would be needed.  For real Islamists that could only be “It’s wrong for Canada to be involved in military action against Muslims anywhere”.  Which would show where their true allegiance lies: with their religious fellows, not with their country.

No wonder Haroon the Magnificent didn’t bother suggesting a public or political route for seriously pissed-off Muslims.

Mark
Ottawa