Who is going to pull the trigger?

[woodenboater]

I'm curious why you think it has to be us in the trenches? Why not Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, etc. These countries have 4.5M troops in theatre already. It's their backyard, why not them? are you so eager to see Canadians in harm's way? edited because that comment was uncalled for.

 

And spare me that baloney about they won't help us later. If anyone ever invades Canada, the U.S. isn't going to say "hey Canada, remember that time you guys wouldn't come to Syria?". That's just a fantasy.

 

Oh those countries should definitely get their hands dirty and some posit that the West should pull back outright and let them deal with it since the Saudis may have their fingerprints all over ISIL , Al Qaeda etc..

 

There are some fights we should be shoulder to shoulder with our allies and this is one. I agree with sending in trainers vs air power.

 

I guess my comment about others coming to our aid was more hyperbole but imo, the US will come to our aid IF it's in their interest and considering we have the longest unprotected border in the world ( I believe) , that's more than likely.

 

Will the fight come to Canada ? Maybe, hard to say, I think the fact that we're not a major player is a factor (less pr worthy) but who knows what the ISIL brain trust is thinking ?

 

Regardless, there needs to be more creative thinking behind how we deal with non traditional enemies that don't respond to having snakeheads lopped off. Following the oil trail is a good start...

[Dutch01]

I know you didn't that's why I added my disclaimer.

 

You say that ignoring another attack would not do a thing and that's a valid opinion. Do you think dropping more bombs than we have already in the last two years will do a thing?

 

I do. I think it will just create more hatred and lead to more attacks. That's just my opinion, no one knows the future.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Dutch01

[Headhunter]

Reports are saying that it will cost the Canadian tax payer $1.2 Billion dollars over five years to assimilate the 25,000 refugees Canada has agreed to accept. That in it's self I don't really have a problem with, assuming that those 25k will eventually become productive members of Canadian Society, pay their taxes, follow the rules of law and assimilate.

My fear however is that they will not assimilate. It will be like trying to teach an old dog, new tricks. They have an established culture and a long standing miss-trust of government (I can't say that I blame them!). I hope they understand the sacrifices that the average Canadian has made, to allow them here. Higher taxes, a strain on an already overloaded social system, lack of affordable housing etc...

HH

[woodenboater]

I know you didn't that's why I added my disclaimer.

 

You say that ignoring another attack would not do a thing and that's a valid opinion. Do you think dropping more bombs than we have already in the last two years will do a thing?

 

I do. I think it will just create more hatred and lead to more attacks. That's just my opinion, no one knows the future.

 

dropping bombs is only feeding the MIC and making a few people filthy rich. This is a result of trying to win the pr war by not bringing soldiers back for repatriation. War by game console if you really wanna be crude. There was a story about how the French work in theatre and it was a fascinating read. Will dig up the link.

 

can't find the link. long story short. the French send in small units of elite fighters into very risky situations (situations others might not consider worth the risk), often times with no extraction likely. they know the players on the ground and who to trust. they get in, do the job and gtfo. they don't try to stabilise or prop up governments. they do enough to meet their objectives. iow, very efficient use of manpower. they have a much smaller army so need to be economical with force. no shock and awe campaigns, well except for raqqa.

Edited November 20, 2015 by woodenboater

[Dutch01]

 

can't find the link. long story short. the French send in small units of elite fighters into very risky situations (situations others might not consider worth the risk), often times with no extraction likely. they know the players on the ground and who to trust. they get in, do the job and gtfo. they don't try to stabilise or prop up governments. they do enough to meet their objectives. iow, very efficient use of manpower. they have a much smaller army so need to be economical with force. no shock and awe campaigns, well except for raqqa.

I actually read the article you are referring to. I'm not sure they are any more successful than anyone else though. They sent some of these units to Mali last year or the year before. Today gunman took a hotel in Mali by storm and there is an ongoing battle with rescue forces right now. So I think it's fair to say they haven't yet accomplished their objectives.

 

I also think the U.S. sends everyone and everything because it makes their backers (like Blackwater and Halliburton or whoever is pulling the strings today) more money.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Dutch01

[cram]

Reports are saying that it will cost the Canadian tax payer $1.2 Billion dollars over five years to assimilate the 25,000 refugees Canada has agreed to accept. That in it's self I don't really have a problem with, assuming that those 25k will eventually become productive members of Canadian Society, pay their taxes, follow the rules of law and assimilate.

My fear however is that they will not assimilate. It will be like trying to teach an old dog, new tricks. They have an established culture and a long standing miss-trust of government (I can't say that I blame them!). I hope they understand the sacrifices that the average Canadian has made, to allow them here. Higher taxes, a strain on an already overloaded social system, lack of affordable housing etc...

HH

If we can afford to bomb them, then we should be able to afford to take in the innocent people running from our bombs.

[DRIFTER_016]

Did we take in Germans, Italians and Japanese during WWII?

One does not harbor their enemies during time of war.

Once the war was over we again opened our borders to those countries but not while we were at war with them.

[manitoubass2]

Did we take in Germans, Italians and Japanese during WWII?

One does not harbor their enemies during time of war.

Once the war was over we again opened our borders to those countries but not while we were at war with them.

Who did we declare war against?

 

Oh thats right terrorists, not ANY country specifically.

[manitoubass2]

Terrorists will never go away.

 

This is an endless war with no way of acheiving success or victory

[DRIFTER_016]

Who did we declare war against?

 

Oh thats right terrorists, not ANY country specifically.

 

Because they don't belong to a specific country does not mean we are not at war!!!

 

Jihadists have attacked a hotel in Mail Indonesia.

Currently 3 dead and up to 200 hostages.

 

https://www.funker530.com/gunmen-take-170-hostages-in-mali-u-s-special-forces-involved/

 

Earlier this week in Nairobi Boko Harem bombed an out door market.

The terrorists were an 11 and 18 year old female suicide bombers!!!!

 

 

Tell me again how the world should just sit back and ignore this threat.

Edited November 20, 2015 by DRIFTER_016

[GBW]

Did we take in Germans, Italians and Japanese during WWII?

One does not harbor their enemies during time of war.

Once the war was over we again opened our borders to those countries but not while we were at war with them.

valid point

[aplumma]

To date the USA has 64 pacts to go to war with our allies if they are attacked. That in itself is reason to show and provide support when it is needed. If we break one pact where does it stop? Will others decide well you didn't help the French when they asked why help you now when you needed it. Sometimes battles are chosen for you from past commitments. The flood of immigrants in Canada affects the USA because they share a relaxed boarder and if Canada does not screen the immigrants correctly then they have an easy path to the USA who also needs to be vigilant as well to protect Canada's interests. Like it or not we share a land mass that is easily breached. The isil has stated that they will use the influx of people to increase the cells that are already here by infiltrating the countries with the masses. The other fact is even if someone comes in with nothing more than propaganda they can convert from within once given access to the country. War is War it isn't pretty it is a battle to put down the opponent to spend what it costs in men and money to reach an objective. In this case it is to stop a force that will do anything to harm people. When you are fighting this type of battle where one side has rules and the other doesn't then you expend more men and money than is needed. I am a bring a gun to a gun fight type of person you mess with my country my country had better come back at you twice over. Humanitarian efforts start after the battle is won not while it is being fought.

 

Art

[DRIFTER_016]

More info on the siege in Mali.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/live/mali-hotel-attack-latest-updates/?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[manitoubass2]

Oh Im well aware we are at war!

[manitoubass2]

Did we take in Germans, Italians and Japanese during WWII?

One does not harbor their enemies during time of war.

Once the war was over we again opened our borders to those countries but not while we were at war with them.

 

Thats is a great poiñt!

 

So basically not in the lifetime.

 

The war on terror will never be over

[DRIFTER_016]

Thats is a great poiñt!

 

So basically not in the lifetime.

 

The war on terror will never be over

 

So we should just ignore it and it will go away then?

 

[Dutch01]

 

So we should just ignore it and it will go away then?

 

You keep alluding to heads in the sand, and it tells me you're too busy formulating your "comeback" to even read what is being written.

 

I haven't seen one single post in this whole thread that advocates doing nothing.

[DRIFTER_016]

You keep alluding to heads in the sand, and it tells me you're too busy formulating your "comeback" to even read what is being written.

 

I haven't seen one single post in this whole thread that advocates doing nothing.

 

But we should keep letting possible enemy combatants into our country because the war on terror "will never be over"?

[Dutch01]

 

But we should keep letting possible enemy combatants into our country because the war on terror "will never be over"?

So we should let fear rule the day and close our borders? That doesn't sound like the Canada our veterans fought for. That sounds like a Canada where IS won because we traded our liberty for the illusion of security because we couldn't control our fear.

[cram]

Did we take in Germans, Italians and Japanese during WWII?

One does not harbor their enemies during time of war.

Once the war was over we again opened our borders to those countries but not while we were at war with them.

 

Are we at war with Syria?

I thought the whole point of going to war against ISIS was because they were running over Syrian and Iraqi towns and killing/abusing their people? Otherwise, why did we go after ISIS in the first place?

 

To use your example above, it would be more like taking in refugees from Poland and Francce when Germany was invading them. It's not perfectly analogous, but a far better comparison than you used above.

 

Edited to add -- it would be more like flying over Poland, bombing the Nazis (and polish towns) and then taking in Polish refugees because they were running from the Nazis (and our bombs). And then us being worried that the Nazis might hide amongst the Polish refugees.........does that make more sense?

Edited November 20, 2015 by cram

[Dutch01]

"The death toll after nearly four years of civil war in Syria has risen to 210,060, nearly half of them civilians, but the real figure is probably much higher, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Saturday.Feb 7, 2015"

 

Source: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0LB0DY20150207

 

As part of the coalition, that blood is on our hands too.

 

How many Canadians have been killed by attacks actually planned and financed by IS?

 

Who should fear who here?

[DRIFTER_016]

http://conservativetribune.com/eyewitness-paris-theatre-isis/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=ConservativeTribune&utm_content=2015-11-19&utm_campaign=manualpost

 

 

 

Eyewitness at Paris Theater Reveals Horrific “Slicing” Torture ISIS Used While Victims Lay Dying

Details emerging about how the Paris terrorists carried out their sick attacks reveal just how barbaric the Islamic State group really is.

Eyewitnesses at the Bataclan theater recounted details about how the gunmen sliced open the stomachs of their victims and watched them suffer.

Mariesha Payne and her best friend, Christine Tudhope, survived the horrific attack by hiding in the basement of the theater for three hours. While they stayed there, they heard screams of victims.

“We knew people were being tortured in the theater because we heard people screaming, but they were not being shot and these were singular screams,” she told the U.K. Daily Mail.

“When we escaped, a man trapped on the level where it happened said to us the terrorists were stabbing people in the stomach. We were told they were throwing explosives at people. It was a horrendous ordeal,” she said.

Payne said she thought she would never see her two children again while she hid, listening to the Islamic savages murder innocent people.

While fleeing the carnage, Payne and Tudhope escaped death by turning right instead of turning left where the terrorists were. The two were actually headed for a fire escape but ran into a dead end and had nowhere to go but into the basement. It turned out to be a life-saving move.

These terrorist animals must be stopped. How President Barack Obama can allow refugees to continue to come into America after news that one of the Paris attackers posed as a refugee is beyond comprehension. Despite Republican efforts to stop the refugee resettlement plan, Obama will do his best to make sure Muslims find their way into this country.

It’s no wonder people are looking to arm themselves — Americans are coming too the realization that their president has done nothing to protect them and will continue to do nothing.

Read more: http://conservativetribune.com/eyewitness-paris-theatre-isis/#ixzz3s3WEUWil

 

[Headhunter]

HH

[Dutch01]

http://conservativetribune.com/eyewitness-paris-theatre-isis/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=ConservativeTribune&utm_content=2015-11-19&utm_campaign=manualpost

 

 

 

This isn't relevant, it's just more fear mongering.

 

We already know terrorists are bad guys. You're not telling us anything new.

 

You're also trying to conflate terrorists with innocent Syrian people who are actually victims of IS. They are not the same.

[DRIFTER_016]

This isn't relevant, it's just more fear mongering.

 

We already know terrorists are bad guys. You're not telling us anything new.

 

You're also trying to conflate terrorists with innocent Syrian people who are actually victims of IS. They are not the same.

 

Did we separate NAZI's from innocent Germans during WWII?

You know the innocent Germans that were actually victims of the NAZI's?