PDA

View Full Version : Canada joins fight against Islamic State



Shalimar
09-06-2014, 10:05 PM
Canada joins fight against Islamic State

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Canada+joins+fight+against+Islamic+State/10180154/story.html

Canada joins fight against Islamic State

Advisors to train Iraqi, Kurdish forces

By David Pugliese, Postmedia News

September 6, 2014

Several dozen Canadian soldiers will be sent to Iraq to advise that
country's military forces in fighting Islamist terrorists, Prime
Minister Stephen Harper announced Friday.

But Canada's contribution could be further increased once a strategy
with NATO allies has been worked out. The Canadians will join U.S.
troops in the northern part of Iraq to provide advice to Iraqi and
Kurdish forces battling Islamic State.

"The fanaticism of the (Islamic State) terrorist group is a real threat
to regional security and millions of innocent people in Iraq, Syria and
beyond," Harper said. "Left unchecked, (Islamic State) is also a direct
threat to Canada and its allies."

The Canadian soldiers will provide strategic and tactical advice to
Iraqis and Kurds before they go into battle against Islamic State. The
Canadians will not take part in combat, Harper said.

"This mission is low risk," Harper said, "(but) it is not without risk."

The prime minister also suggested there was the possibility Canada could
contribute more to efforts to stop Islamic State.

"I do expect in the period to come our allies will look at further steps
and obviously we'll evaluate those," he said.

The troops will be in Iraq for as long as 30 days. At that point, the
mission will be reassessed and could be extended.

Opposition leaders are to be briefed on the decision.

Shortly after Harper's comments, the NDP raised the spectre of "mission
creep" amid calls for Parliament to have a debate and vote before Canada
sends any military personnel to Iraq.

"The Iraq War, the Libya situation, Afghanistan - mission creep has been
a feature of these events," said NDP defence critic Jack Harris. "We
need to be cautious about what commitments we're making and that we know
what we're doing."

A Liberal spokeswoman, Kate Purchase, said the party supports sending
Canadian troops "in a non-combat capacity, and in co-operation with our
allies, to provide advice on the security situation in that country."

The Canadian military has already transported ammunition, weapons and
other gear to Kurdish forces fighting Islamic State. The terrorist group
has seized large parts of Iraq and forced Iraqi military units to
retreat on a number of fronts.

The U.S. has launched airstrikes against Islamic State but is not keen
to commit large numbers of troops on the ground. The group is equipped
with captured U.S. and Iraqi military equipment, including artillery,
helicopters and vehicles. It is considered one of the most violent and
extreme of the Islamic militant groups and is reported to have as many
as 10,000 gunmen.

Earlier in the week on a visit to London, Harper said the murder of two
journalists by Islamic State is the "tip of the iceberg" in how the
terrorist group brutally treats people.

The group has claimed responsibility for the recent beheading deaths of
U.S. journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. Amnesty International
has also accused Islamic State of ethnic cleansing against religious
minorities. Harper has said Islamic State is similar to the Taliban, in
that it is in the process of establishing a quasistate, which will
become a terrorist training ground.

While Canadian troops are heading to Iraq, the contribution to new NATO
and allied rapid-response units is not as clear. Canada's interest in
joining a separate British-led high readiness expeditionary force seems
to have fallen by the wayside.

Reports last week suggested that Canada would contribute up to 1,000
troops. But NATO officials say Canada has not committed any personnel to
that initiative.

NATO is also interested in creating a "spearhead" of several thousand
troops that respond to a military crisis within two days. But Canada is
not ready to make a decision on whether it will participate, Harper
said.

matty86suk
09-07-2014, 09:14 AM
Defund the cf then send them to war...thanks harpo

Strewth
09-07-2014, 10:02 AM
Defund the cf then send them to war...thanks harpo

I'm not really up on the CF funding, but was it good under any party? Did the Liberals put a lot of money into the Forces?

I think the majority of the public is tired of hearing about troops being sent into the "sandbox" with no clear victory to have a parade about (everyone likes a parade). Conflict in the Middle East has never been resolved in all of recorded history. Drawing arbitrary lines in the desert and calling the results a country, the West supporting a random country and then pulling out when needed most, the end of imperialism and colonies, heck, finding out that oil is actually a pretty cool thing to have have all been icing on the cake of a hatred that has been simmering in oral histories that pre-date the Crusades.
I can't imaging fighting in a place with no battle lines, or even battle gear on the indigenous people. Look,a guy with an AK! Is he an enemy, or a friend? That has to be incredibly stressful.

Shalimar
09-07-2014, 10:06 AM
I'm not really up on the CF funding, but was it good under any party? Did the Liberals put a lot of money into the Forces?

I think the majority of the public is tired of hearing about troops being sent into the "sandbox" with no clear victory to have a parade about (everyone likes a parade). Conflict in the Middle East has never been resolved in all of recorded history. Drawing arbitrary lines in the desert and calling the results a country, the West supporting a random country and then pulling out when needed most, the end of imperialism and colonies, heck, finding out that oil is actually a pretty cool thing to have have all been icing on the cake of a hatred that has been simmering in oral histories that pre-date the Crusades.
I can't imaging fighting in a place with no battle lines, or even battle gear on the indigenous people. Look,a guy with an AK! Is he an enemy, or a friend? That has to be incredibly stressful.

What's even worse is the clusterF of the F35 (barely flying POS at best).. That entire thing needs to be dropped period since there are far far better alternatives for our needs and for less $$$.

That is one area where Harper has really screwed the pooch.. which is really stupid since he is an economist he should understand the #'s better.

Doug_M
09-07-2014, 10:19 AM
I'm not really up on the CF funding, but was it good under any party? Did the Liberals put a lot of money into the Forces?

No party has truly been good to the CF since post WWII. Generally, the Conservatives buy equipment but cut back benefits whereas the Liberals increase pay and benefits but never buy equipment. Truly the general population is to blame as we never as a whole accept the need for a military and so don't like to spend money on it. Every time a government announces some spending increase for the CF the first thing you hear is "that should go to health or education". But when certain disasters or world events happen those same people want the government to send our military.

Shalimar
09-07-2014, 10:53 AM
No party has truly been good to the CF since post WWII. Generally, the Conservatives buy equipment but cut back benefits whereas the Liberals increase pay and benefits but never buy equipment. Truly the general population is to blame as we never as a whole accept the need for a military and so don't like to spend money on it. Every time a government announces some spending increase for the CF the first thing you hear is "that should go to health or education". But when certain disasters or world events happen those same people want the government to send our military.

Or worse... buy crap and expect the CF to somehow polish a turd.

matty86suk
09-07-2014, 01:10 PM
Didn't we(Canada's government) bolden and empower isis in Libya?? Did we not support the FSA(isis) in Syria?? Now we have to fight them in Iraq?? Didn't kings use to lead their armies into battle....??

ilikemoose
09-07-2014, 01:26 PM
I wish our troops the best on this mission.

That being said, the Iraqi military has had enormous amounts of training and advice given to it over the past decade, and it's still cartoonishly inept, and I douby anything our soldiers can do to change that.

awndray
10-02-2014, 11:36 AM
Summary

This report is published jointly by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). It covers the period from 6 July to 10 September 2014 (“the reporting period”) and follows on from UNAMI/OHCHR’s first published report on protection of civilians in the ongoing non-international armed conflict in Iraq covering the period from 5 June to 5 July 2014, released on 18 August 2014.

The conflict between the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and affiliated forces, on the one hand, and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated armed groups, on the other, continues to take a heavy toll on civilians. Gross human rights abuses and acts of violence of an increasingly sectarian nature, committed by armed groups, have exacerbated the effect on civilians and contributed to the deterioration in the human rights situation and the rule of law, in many parts of the country.

Overall, at least 24,015 civilians have been killed or injured in Iraq during the first eight months of 2014. Of these, at least 8,493 civilians were killed and 15,782 were wounded. From the spread of the conflict from Anbar to other areas of Iraq, UNAMI/OHCHR recorded at least 11,159 civilian casualties between 1 June and 31 August. This number includes at least 4,692 civilians killed, and 6,467 wounded. The actual numbers could be much higher. Additionally, the number of civilians who have died from the secondary effects of violence, such as lack of access to basic food, water or medicine, after fleeing their homes or who remained trapped in areas under ISIL control or in areas of conflict are unknown. Children, pregnant women, persons with disabilities, and elderly people have been particularly vulnerable.

As of August 2014, an estimated 1.8 million Iraqis had been displaced due to the ongoing violence.

Some 1,000,000 are displaced in areas under the control of ISIL and associated armed groups or in areas under Government control, while 800,000 were displaced in the Kurdistan Region. Ensuring the protection and basic humanitarian needs of all civilians remains of critical importance.

UNAMI/OHCHR has received reports of serious violations of international humanitarian law and gross abuses of human rights that have been perpetrated by ISIL and associated armed groups, with an apparent systematic and widespread character. These include attacks directly targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, executions and other targeted killings of civilians, abductions, rape and other forms of sexual and physical violence perpetrated against women and children, forced recruitment of children, destruction or desecration of places of religious or cultural significance, wanton destruction and looting of property, and denial of fundamental freedoms.

Members of Iraq’s diverse ethnic and religious communities, including Turkmen, Shabak, Christians, Yezidi, Sabaeans, Kaka’e, Faili Kurds, Arab Shi’a, and others have particularly been affected by the situation. ISIL and associated armed groups intentionally and systematically targeted these communities for gross human rights abuses, at times aimed at destroying, suppressing or cleansing them from areas under their control. ISIL and associated armed groups also murdered captured soldiers and other security forces or government personnel. UNAMI/OHCHR notes that many of the violations and abuses perpetrated by ISIL and associated armed groups may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity.

UNAMI/OHCHR also received some reports of serious violations of international humanitarian law and gross violations or abuses of international human rights law committed by ISF and affiliated armed groups that occurred during the reporting period. These included air strikes and shelling as well as conduct of particular military operations or attacks that may have violated the principles of distinction and proportionality under international humanitarian law. Armed groups affiliated to or supporting the Government also carried out targeted killings, including of captured fighters from ISIL and its associated armed groups, and abductions of civilians.
Full Report: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014 .pdf

Strangeday
10-02-2014, 04:09 PM
Advisors....hmmm just like how the Vietnam war started. I say we stop pussy footing around and just get down to business once and for all

harbl_the_cat
10-02-2014, 04:35 PM
Sigh...

Didn't the Nazi's send advisers into Spain when the Spanish Civil war broke out?

The NDP isn't right about a lot of things. They were right about this:

http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mlFYxS_6eanYxdWzK6jZ5mw.jpg

awndray
10-02-2014, 05:59 PM
Advisors....
It's not as if nobody knew.

Foxer
10-02-2014, 09:38 PM
Didn't the Nazi's send advisers into Spain when the Spanish Civil war broke out?


Well not exactly - they did but they mostly sent stuff to 'evaluate' their own tactics and new tech. German fighters for example. Everybody got in on that war, and for much the same reasons.

It's also incidentally the war that gave us the term 'fifth column'

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 11:33 AM
Well not exactly - they did but they mostly sent stuff to 'evaluate' their own tactics and new tech. German fighters for example. Everybody got in on that war, and for much the same reasons.

It's also incidentally the war that gave us the term 'fifth column'

I tried not following the story, but I think the opposition - both Trudeau and Mulcair are right about this one.

Canada should NOT be involved in this conflict.

I hope the Tories lose the election over this.

I think the best thing Canada should do is follow the Swiss model during WWII: Arm the citizenry, make the country an impregnable redoubt, offer financial services to anyone, delegate more power to the Provinces and Municipalities and less to the Federal government.

Armed neutrality, not armed intervention.

awndray
10-03-2014, 11:40 AM
That doesn't win votes ;)

Haywire1
10-03-2014, 11:41 AM
Well since realistically if the otries lose the election, it would leave us with either libs or dips in power, barring a millennial upsrising, neither of which is really a good idea based on past performances either provincial or federal, I am happy to vote Tory. I happen to agree with you on the Swiss idea harbl, but that also comes with its own set of issues. One being the armed neutrality concept is ineffective in todays world as modern weapon systems have rendered bunkers etc next to useless, leaving aside nukes.

Foxer
10-03-2014, 11:45 AM
I tried not following the story, but I think the opposition - both Trudeau and Mulcair are right about this one.

Canada should NOT be involved in this conflict.

I hope the Tories lose the election over this.

I think the best thing Canada should do is follow the Swiss model during WWII: Arm the citizenry, make the country an impregnable redoubt, offer financial services to anyone, delegate more power to the Provinces and Municipalities and less to the Federal government.

Armed neutrality, not armed intervention.

Well there are arguments around staying out of it, but the 'swiss model' isn't one of them. That worked because german soldiers were nicely identifiable and they didn't practice a lot of terror tactics. this is different - how do you fortify your country against 'people'? We already have 'people' here :)

I don't think we should be playing a military role to be honest. But - just so we're clear the opposition is actually PRO intervening, they just don't want military action. They DO want us to supply and transport military weapons and cargo and training. So we're going to be 'in it' either way. The question on the table now is do we want to make any of our attack aircraft available.

Shalimar
10-03-2014, 11:59 AM
Well since realistically if the otries lose the election, it would leave us with either libs or dips in power, barring a millennial upsrising, neither of which is really a good idea based on past performances either provincial or federal, I am happy to vote Tory. I happen to agree with you on the Swiss idea harbl, but that also comes with its own set of issues. One being the armed neutrality concept is ineffective in todays world as modern weapon systems have rendered bunkers etc next to useless, leaving aside nukes.

Overall I agree.. but then there is also the aspect that ISIS is not something that can simply be ignored.. we will be involved one way or another even w/o sending over F-18's etc.. they want us dead regardless of anything else.. so I'd have to say dealing with them very harshly now is a better idea than waiting for them to pull some BS here.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 12:17 PM
Well there are arguments around staying out of it, but the 'swiss model' isn't one of them. That worked because german soldiers were nicely identifiable and they didn't practice a lot of terror tactics. this is different - how do you fortify your country against 'people'? We already have 'people' here :)

I don't think we should be playing a military role to be honest. But - just so we're clear the opposition is actually PRO intervening, they just don't want military action. They DO want us to supply and transport military weapons and cargo and training. So we're going to be 'in it' either way. The question on the table now is do we want to make any of our attack aircraft available.

Intervention: Precisely why I'm just not voting next election and encouraging everyone I know not to as well.

All intervention is bad, military intervention is worst.

It only gives terrorists incentive to resort to terror tactics against our nation.

They have no respectable military, other than the one our government and it's allies built and gave to them.

Our government does have a respectable military - what else are "they" supposed to do when our government uses it's military to attack them?

I'd rather the government not send it's military after them, generating hatred - and instead allow the citizens they govern to set the precedent that they are capable of defending themselves.

Believe it or not - not every citizen is a moron.

Explain to me how is an jihad-terrorist any different than an active shooter, rapist, bank robber, or any other criminal who uses violence to forward their own personal agenda? An armed citizenry obviously the is the best deterrent against the former - why not the later?

Doug_M
10-03-2014, 12:24 PM
I think the best thing Canada should do is follow the Swiss model during WWII: Arm the citizenry, make the country an impregnable redoubt, offer financial services to anyone, delegate more power to the Provinces and Municipalities and less to the Federal government.

The problem with the "Swiss model" is that neither the Libs, NDP or Conservatives will ever spend what is necessary to properly defend the country. And while you can convince a large amount of people to stay out of the middle east, you'll never convince a large enough portion of the Cdn population to spend a lot more on defence.

Shalimar
10-03-2014, 12:27 PM
The problem with the "Swiss model" is that neither the Libs, NDP or Conservatives will ever spend what is necessary to properly defend the country. And while you can convince a large amount of people to stay out of the middle east, you'll never convince a large enough portion of the Cdn population to spend a lot more on defence.

The Swiss model also has a very large % of the population trained and armed... whereas here we get persecuted for even thinking that way. Unless there is a major attack here of some sorts I very much doubt that will change anytime soon.

Strangeday
10-03-2014, 12:33 PM
this should read...Canada under hand pitches in the fight against ISIS...

now maybe if the Canadian government wants to start admitting to what certain elements of the Canadian Military are actually doing while under operational command of another countries joint operational force then hey...thats saying something. Until then lets all pretend to be in the dark.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 12:34 PM
The problem with the "Swiss model" is that neither the Libs, NDP or Conservatives will ever spend what is necessary to properly defend the country. And while you can convince a large amount of people to stay out of the middle east, you'll never convince a large enough portion of the Cdn population to spend a lot more on defence.

Why does the government need to be involved in defense at all? This day and age a large, complex, interdependent supply chain is a prime target asymmetric attack (like terrorism) since localized points of failure have wide reaching implications.

A system of high interdependence is incredibly vulnerable to the smallest break, so I say rather than increase the interdependence - decrease it to reduce the impact of small localized failure.

Doing so makes it more robust and resilient.

The system today is a total mess of absolute coupling, virtually non-existent cohesion - which is why the terrorism is so effective.

Low coupling, high cohesion is obviously the most desirable system there is.

Haywire1
10-03-2014, 12:56 PM
He problem with that harbl is you are assuming terrorists choose their targets with an eye towards reducing a countries ability to fight. The twin towers is arguably the single greatest terror attack ever conducted. It fundamentally change the entire view of a nation, forced it to enact new laws,overhaul a large part and tactics of its military, forced it to redo how it protects airlines and passengers, caused the creation of an entirely new federal department, changed an entire worlds viewpoint on terrorism and killed over 3000 people. However the attack came not against a supply chain but against a couple of office buildings. Attacking a supply chain is a military, or geurilla warfare tactic not a terrorist tactic. Terrorists operate on using minimal force to inflict maximum fear to accomplish their goals. Having a huge spread out supply chain does nothing to protect a football or hocky arena, which are far more likely targets for a terrorist than a company that makes widgets. Guerillas and military concentrate on attacking military or military connected targets. Terrorists go after civilians every time.

Doug_M
10-03-2014, 01:09 PM
Why does the government need to be involved in defense at all?

'cause this ain't fantasy land.

Shalimar
10-03-2014, 01:47 PM
He problem with that harbl is you are assuming terrorists choose their targets with an eye towards reducing a countries ability to fight. The twin towers is arguably the single greatest terror attack ever conducted. It fundamentally change the entire view of a nation, forced it to enact new laws,overhaul a large part and tactics of its military, forced it to redo how it protects airlines and passengers, caused the creation of an entirely new federal department, changed an entire worlds viewpoint on terrorism and killed over 3000 people. However the attack came not against a supply chain but against a couple of office buildings. Attacking a supply chain is a military, or geurilla warfare tactic not a terrorist tactic. Terrorists operate on using minimal force to inflict maximum fear to accomplish their goals. Having a huge spread out supply chain does nothing to protect a football or hocky arena, which are far more likely targets for a terrorist than a company that makes widgets. Guerillas and military concentrate on attacking military or military connected targets. Terrorists go after civilians every time.

If they did not they would face armed opposition which of course they do not want. Same as the lunatics attacking in 'gun free zones' or criminals that won't try to rob X if they know that someone there could be armed.

Maximum carnage is what they want to use as a fear inducing weapon.. and that is why I am all for such being dealt with beyond harshly...


'cause this ain't fantasy land.

Some will never see that cold hard reality though (JT for example?)

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 02:09 PM
He problem with that harbl is you are assuming terrorists choose their targets with an eye towards reducing a countries ability to fight. The twin towers is arguably the single greatest terror attack ever conducted. It fundamentally change the entire view of a nation, forced it to enact new laws,overhaul a large part and tactics of its military, forced it to redo how it protects airlines and passengers, caused the creation of an entirely new federal department, changed an entire worlds viewpoint on terrorism and killed over 3000 people. However the attack came not against a supply chain but against a couple of office buildings. Attacking a supply chain is a military, or geurilla warfare tactic not a terrorist tactic. Terrorists operate on using minimal force to inflict maximum fear to accomplish their goals. Having a huge spread out supply chain does nothing to protect a football or hocky arena, which are far more likely targets for a terrorist than a company that makes widgets. Guerillas and military concentrate on attacking military or military connected targets. Terrorists go after civilians every time.

The World Trade Center were a quintessential part to the Western supply chain. The stock market crash immediately after 9/11 was the largest stock market crash in US history (at the time) and brought in the economic policies that brought even worse economic crashes in the decade that followed (and now).

The US (and west in general) pre-9/11 were free, economically prosperous regions - but the interdependence on the financial industry have reduced them to bankrupt totalitarian states.


Terrorists go after civilians every time.

Exactly why every civilian should be able to defend themselves instead of being told by Ralph Wiggum's to just lay down and let themselves be robbed/assaulted/raped/murdered while they wait for help to arrive 15 minutes later.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 02:10 PM
'cause this ain't fantasy land.

Rifle behind every blade of grass or more appropriate - 9mm pistol in every waist band.

What's so fantasy land about that?

Shalimar
10-03-2014, 02:15 PM
Rifle behind every blade of grass or more appropriate - 9mm pistol in every waist band.

What's so fantasy land about that?

this is canuckistan.. not the US

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 02:17 PM
this is canuckistan.. not the US

The US is no better and I don't make that assertion based on the ridiculous system the US has set up.

I'm more thinking along the lines of Canada back in 1892 - the government seemed to have a whole lot more common sense back then than it does now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada


The Criminal Code of Canada enacted in 1892, required individuals to have a permit to carry a pistol unless the owner had cause to fear assault or injury. Not until 1935 was it considered an offence to sell a pistol to anyone under 16. Vendors who sold handguns had to keep records, including purchaser's name, the date of sale and a description of the gun.

Heck, even Liberal sodomite, Oscar Wilde (whose writings high school kids today are indoctrinated to study) had the right idea back in 1894.

In response to a threat on his personal safety from his gay lover's father he is quoted as saying:


"I don't know what the Queensberry rules are, but the Oscar Wilde rule is to shoot on sight"

That's the importance of being earnest... and I say "the Oscar Wilde rule" would do a lot more to curb Islamic terrorism than the government carpet bombing civilians in some foreign country.

Haywire1
10-03-2014, 02:21 PM
You are mixing economics and supply chains. The supply of goods didnt change (excepting air freight). Thw twin towers didnt stop people from buying groceries, water, fuel etc. Food, water, shelter and transportation are covered by a supply chain, not economics. Economics plays a part in supply but not as major a one as you are suggesting. However leaving off that, again terrorists use mass killings bombing and other fear tactics to accomplish their goals. A crash of the stock market doesnt affect me directly, the majority of companies I deal with are not publicly traded. An crash in supply of food is different. Although it can be dealt with.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 02:33 PM
You are mixing economics and supply chains. The supply of goods didnt change (excepting air freight). Thw twin towers didnt stop people from buying groceries, water, fuel etc. Food, water, shelter and transportation are covered by a supply chain, not economics. Economics plays a part in supply but not as major a one as you are suggesting. However leaving off that, again terrorists use mass killings bombing and other fear tactics to accomplish their goals. A crash of the stock market doesnt affect me directly, the majority of companies I deal with are not publicly traded. An crash in supply of food is different. Although it can be dealt with.

Semantic difference - replace supply chain with fabric of society - and given that the majority of GDP of nations like the US and Canada are from the finance sector, an attack on the financial industry and crash on the stock market has major repercussions on everybody.

To prop up the financial sector crippled by 9/11, the government started intervening - devaluing their currency to prop up crippled industries (like the banking and automotive industry). That devaluation destroyed the purchasing power of the currency you probably had to engage in commerce with. It destroyed the jobs AND savings of people. It destroyed the prosperity in society - significantly lowering the standard of living for everyone as the cherry on top of the lives lost during the actual attacks.

I remember BS Bush saying the terrorist hate us for our wealth and freedom. Both of which are now gone because of the government's overreaction to 9/11 with the subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan - and now government parasites are feeding the same tripe that "we need to get the terrorists over there before they get us over here" nonsense that brought about the wretched state our society is now in.

Camo tung
10-03-2014, 02:37 PM
If left unchecked this problem (ISIS and followers) will continue to fester for years if not generations. I'll all for bombing them back into the dark ages (oh, wait...).

In the meantime, well equipped or not, I'm standing behind our pork eating crusaders. Go Team CF!

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 02:41 PM
If left unchecked this problem (ISIS and followers) will continue to fester for years if not generations. I'll all for bombing them back into the dark ages (oh, wait...).

In the meantime, well equipped or not, I'm standing behind our pork eating crusaders. Go Team CF!

If you stand behind them - why do you want your government to send them into an un-winnable quagmire which, despite their best intentions, cannot bring about anything positive for either the people there, here, and certainly not for them?

Bombing those people won't do anything to lessen their hate for our government. It will only enrage them further and embolden them more to try to come after you and I.

They have their unwavering commitment to their religion to fuel them to fight. What does our government have?

I'd rather have our military here to help local civil authorities in case there's a major Ebola outbreak - not fighting a pointless war where nothing good will come about.

This just about sums it up:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/06/20140616_iaq.jpg

Shalimar
10-03-2014, 02:45 PM
The US is no better and I don't make that assertion based on the ridiculous system the US has set up.

I'm more thinking along the lines of Canada back in 1892 - the government seemed to have a whole lot more common sense back then than it does now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada



Heck, even Liberal sodomite, Oscar Wilde (whose writings high school kids today are indoctrinated to study) had the right idea back in 1894.

In response to a threat on his personal safety from his gay lover's father he is quoted as saying:



That's the importance of being earnest... and I say "the Oscar Wilde rule" would do a lot more to curb Islamic terrorism than the government carpet bombing civilians in some foreign country.




Way back when yes.. but we have to deal with the reality of today.. and that which you pointed out while valid in some ways is irrelevant to the point of the hear and now.

Given that fact the US system while anything but perfect is still in this regard infinitely superior to the fubar mess we have especially in this context.

awndray
10-03-2014, 02:46 PM
It's not our government they hate. It's us - anyone who isn't them, the infidels. As much as war is political, it turned into a whole new ballgame when they started going after civilians.

Shalimar
10-03-2014, 02:47 PM
If you stand behind them - why do you want your government to send them into an un-winnable quagmire which, despite their best intentions, cannot bring about anything positive for either the people there, here, and certainly not for them?

Bombing those people won't do anything to lessen their hate for our government. It will only enrage them further and embolden them more to try to come after you and I.

They have their unwavering commitment to their religion to fuel them to fight. What does our government have?

Doing something along the lines of what I posted before regarding extremely harsh reactions to their terrorist actions though is an option. distasteful yes.. but the premise is already proven to work based on history.

However most if not all politicians will not have the balls or stomach for such.. at least not publicly which defeats the purpose.

Camo tung
10-03-2014, 02:49 PM
They have their unwavering commitment to their religion to fuel them. What does our government have?

Bombs. Big-a##, MF bombs. Lots of 'em. More correctly, our allies to the south have lots of those trinkets...and I'm ok with sending a few of our flying dispensers. If you're looking for me to show any love towards those people you have the wrong guy. Love, hugs, humanitarian aid....that opportunity has long passed. Time to hit their reset button.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 02:53 PM
Way back when yes.. but we have to deal with the reality of today.. and that which you pointed out while valid in some ways is irrelevant to the point of the hear and now.

Given that fact the US system while anything but perfect is still in this regard infinitely superior to the fubar mess we have especially in this context.

How is it invalid?

I'm a civilian. My government carpet bombs a village in Iraq, killing civilians there. Surviving relatives of those civilians listen to a religious fanatic telling them if they become a terrorist and attack me, they can have their revenge and 72 virgins if they die trying. My government tells me I'm not allowed to defend myself against such terrorist.

If you ask me - two things that would solve this problem are:
1. My government not killing innocent civilians over there.
2. My government not preventing me from being able to defend myself.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 02:54 PM
Bombs. Big-a##, MF bombs. Lots of 'em. More correctly, our allies to the south have lots of those trinkets...and I'm ok with sending a few of our flying dispensers. If you're looking for me to show any love towards those people you have the wrong guy. Love, hugs, humanitarian aid....that opportunity has long passed. Time to hit their reset button.

http://lowres.cartoonstock.com/none-hydra-isil-islamic_state_in_iraq_and_levant-terrorism-terrorists-mkan744_low.jpg

The government and their allies CANNOT win this.

WHEN the catastrophic blow back from this unbelievably foolish endeavor manifest - if the government hasn't made it illegal to do so, I'll be saying "I told you so." VERY loudly.

awndray
10-03-2014, 02:57 PM
Who said carpet bombing? With the technology we have, we can do better. We've all seen the videos.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 03:00 PM
Who said carpet bombing? With the technology we have, we can do better. We've all seen the videos.

Potato-potatoe - the result is the same.

THE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR ALLIES CANNOT WIN.

Camo tung
10-03-2014, 03:01 PM
It's not our government they hate. It's us - anyone who isn't them, the infidels. As much as war is political, it turned into a whole new ballgame when they started going after civilians.

^^ This guy gets it. They have made it about the individual.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 03:02 PM
^^ This guy gets it. They have made it about the individual.

Only because of our government's proven stupidity and insanity.

Camo tung
10-03-2014, 03:14 PM
Only because of our government's proven stupidity and insanity.

My government told them that religious extremism is the answer to all of their generational issues? That killing each other, and those that are branded "non-believers" is the final solution? Their big book of creative writing tells them that this is their prophets "will", their purpose on this planet is to spread their hateful message? Seems a lot like Nazis but with shitty headgear. Extremist religious views will be the undoing of civilization. Push the button already.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 03:22 PM
My government told them that religious extremism is the answer to all of their generational issues?

No - your government aligned themselves with the tyrannical American government and pledged tangible support to their military campaign against them.


That killing each other, and those that are branded "non-believers" is the final solution? Their big book of creative writing tells them that this is their prophets "will", their purpose on this planet is to spread their hateful message? Seems a lot like Nazis but with shitty headgear. Extremist religious views will be the undoing of civilization. Push the button already.

I'm a religious extremist. I don't believe in their god, their prophet, or their message - but I have my holy scriptures, my God and his message, who I put my trust into.

If our moronic leaders want to destroy THIS country by their own foolishness - that's their imperative. That's all that attacking ISIS will result in.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 03:25 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8TLu514EgU

I understand why some here are afraid of this guy - on my own, I am too.

If he trusts his god and his works - so be it.

I'll trust only in my God and know I'm safe.

Personally, I won't let my irrational fear lead me to want, need or trust the government to deal with him, when I know rationally they can't possibly do anything that will make me safe.

Camo tung
10-03-2014, 03:41 PM
I'm a religious extremist. I don't believe in their god, their prophet, or their message - but I have my holy scriptures, my God and his message, who I put my trust into.

Good luck with that. Not knocking your set of beliefs but trust isn't going to cut it this time. Decisive, overwhelming action beyond just "strategic military targets" is required. This group is the epitome of evil, right down to the single member. Knocking off a few at the top only creates opportunities for "career advancement" by the next aspiring individual. Burn the area to the ground, figuratively and literally.

RangeBob
10-03-2014, 03:43 PM
Who said carpet bombing? With the technology we have, we can do better. We've all seen the videos.

Better than carpet bombing, yes.

Drones
They have no idea who they are shooting. They have no idea how many they've killed.
They define enemy combatants as any male between the ages of 17 and 50.
They identified "appropriate targets" as anyone roughly the same height as Bin Laden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs

Fighting terrorists, even with boots-on-the-ground, is pretty much the same target problem though.
By way of example, in the Kenya's Westgate mall terrorist attack, eventually they sent in SWAT through one door and solders through the other. Neither got anywhere near the terrorists, but soldiers shot anyone who moved, starting with a bunch of hiding civilians who thought they were now rescued, and then three police. When the soldier shot police officer died, the SWAT leader pulled his police out, and the commander of the soldiers pulled his soldiers out, leaving hostages behind -- never having met a terrorist.
Later the soldiers bombed the mall, one huge bomb killed the four terrorists.

As for the 'war', I have no educated opinion.
ISIS seems bad,
wars are expensive in multiple ways,
and the media have been brainwashing us since 1990, and more so in the past decade, that we should be in a war with Arabs.
Newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst started a war to increase circulation.
"Bad news sells best. 'Cause good news is no news" (Tatum, "Ace in the Hole")

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 03:44 PM
Good luck with that. Not knocking your set of beliefs but trust isn't going to cut it this time. Decisive, overwhelming action beyond just "strategic military targets" is required. This group is the epitome of evil, right down to the single member. Knocking off a few at the top only creates opportunities for "career advancement" by the next aspiring individual. Burn the area to the ground, figuratively and literally.

If our government left them alone to try to govern with their backwards ideology - they would run their state into the ground within 5 years and be a threat to no one.

Because our government is intervening - they will probably target our citizenry for generations to come.

RangeBob
10-03-2014, 03:46 PM
If our government left them alone to try to govern with their backwards ideology - they would run their state into the ground within 5 years and be a threat to no one.

ISIS apparently is selling enough oil to make them a minor OPEC member.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 03:50 PM
ISIS apparently is selling enough oil to make them a minor OPEC member.

Then why doesn't our government just let the other OPEC nations deal with them? I'm sure the other OPEC nations LOVE ISIS undercutting their prime export on the black market.

Camo tung
10-03-2014, 03:57 PM
If our government left them alone to try to govern with their backwards ideology - they would run their state into the ground within 5 years and be a threat to no one.

Doubtful. They have already gained control of much of the country and infrastructure, and apparently are now able to generate a high level of income to finance their growth and agenda. Wait too long and they will be sitting at the table at the UN.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 04:04 PM
Doubtful. They have already gained control of much of the country and infrastructure, and apparently are now able to generate a high level of income to finance their growth and agenda. Wait too long and they will be sitting at the table at the UN.

Maybe Strangeday can comment - but on a percentage basis, how many of foreign fighters from Western nations do you think are highly trained, highly educated, well paid professionals in highly technical or specialized fields?

It seems to me most of the ISIS fighters are disaffected, disgruntled college aged kids with little to lose by becoming a martyr to Allah.

Do you honestly think ISIS can recruit the kinds of people needed to maintain that countries infrastructure?

I think most Muslims who know how to design a pipeline or operate a SCADA system would probably chose Fort Mac or Calgary over Iraq, and could probably hire more than 72 virgins with their compensation packages to boot. I work with some in fact.

The problem is people who know how to do stuff like that don't generally get their jollies by cutting people's heads off and going on suicide missions.

Doug_M
10-03-2014, 04:14 PM
Rifle behind every blade of grass or more appropriate - 9mm pistol in every waist band.

What's so fantasy land about that?
It is fantasy to think that enough Canadians would if they could.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 04:16 PM
It is fantasy to think that enough Canadians would if they could.

Why? It's only been in the past 50 or so years that Canadian gun laws have gone full retard.

Doug_M
10-03-2014, 04:20 PM
Why? It's only been in the past 50 or so years that Canadian gun laws have gone full retard.
It's got nothing to do with the gun laws and everything to do with the people themselves. The vast majority of Canadians are not interested in owning guns and it is not because of the laws.

Camo tung
10-03-2014, 04:32 PM
It seems to me most of the ISIS fighters are disaffected, disgruntled college aged kids with little to lose by becoming a martyr to Allah. Do you honestly think ISIS can recruit the kinds of people needed to maintain that countries infrastructure? I think most Muslims who know how to design a pipeline or operate a SCADA system would probably chose Fort Mac or Calgary over Iraq, and could probably hire more than 72 virgins with their compensation packages to boot. I work with some in fact. The problem is people who know how to do stuff like that don't generally get their jollies by cutting people's heads off and going on suicide missions.

The fact that more and more eastern Europe and western youth are travelling to that area to join in the fight belies your statement. An influx of educated youth would be the brains to further manipulate an angry, semi-organized mob. Add to that the income derived from seizing control of various industries and you have all the makings of another powder keg. The tentacles of recruitment have reached out far from their borders and are finding supporters. THAT is what makes this situation so easy to find it's way back inside OUR borders.

Camo tung
10-03-2014, 04:34 PM
It's got nothing to do with the gun laws and everything to do with the people themselves. The vast majority of Canadians are not interested in owning guns and it is not because of the laws.

Valid comment. The last generation especially has had any desire to try activities such as sport shooting or hunting literally bred out of them by the media.

harbl_the_cat
10-03-2014, 04:37 PM
It's got nothing to do with the gun laws and everything to do with the people themselves. The vast majority of Canadians are not interested in owning guns and it is not because of the laws.

I think it has EVERYTHING to do with the laws. Simply put - it's AGAINST the law to defend one's self witha gun and the laws make it very difficult to do anything else. Most people are law-abiding, both the spirit and the letter - hence, gun ownership took a big hit when the apex of retarded gun laws took root in the 90's.

I see that trend reversing in a big way.


The fact that more and more eastern Europe and western youth are travelling to that area to join in the fight belies your statement. An influx of educated youth would be the brains to further manipulate an angry, semi-organized mob. Add to that the income derived from seizing control of various industries and you have all the makings of another powder keg. The tentacles of recruitment have reached out far from their borders and are finding supporters. THAT is what makes this situation so easy to find it's way back inside OUR borders.

Europe is even worse than North America for youth unemployment, size of Muslim populations, AND poor policy and cultural attitude surrounding integration of Muslims.

The thing with Islam is it has a LOT of appeal to young, poor men. To the earlier point, I would say the economic impact of 9/11 were much more significant in causing the problem with Westerners volunteering to fight for ISIS. The ones who suffered the biggest economic impact from 9/11 were the young - that's an irrefutable fact. It should come as no surprise that some of them would turn to Islam, especially given the West's rejection of Christianity.

Islam and atheism have a LOT in common, and honestly, I think it's not going to be uncommon to see more young Bob Smith's (as opposed to Mohamid Ali Derkas) signing up to fight for ISIS for that very reason.


Valid comment. The last generation especially has had any desire to try activities such as sport shooting or hunting literally bred out of them by the media.

That's not true. Just look at how many Youtube gun channels there are with tens of thousands of subscribers and millions of hits.

Camo tung
10-03-2014, 04:46 PM
That's not true. Just look at how many Youtube gun channels there are with tens of thousands of subscribers and millions of hits.

Doug's comment was regarding Canadian's having the will to actually take up a firearm. You-tube hits and subscribers mean dick in the real world. I stand behind Doug's comment and mine - gun ownership and the desire to try the shooting sports is dying out faster than we can bring people in because of how the media portrays every use of a firearm as somehow violent. The millennial's will be a generation of poorly engaged (non-voting, with your support) pussies. In Canada at least.

RangeBob
10-03-2014, 05:03 PM
The last generation especially has had any desire to try activities such as sport shooting or hunting literally bred out of them by the media.

Certainly many women seem to be taking up hunting. Sales at Canadian Tire are picking up.
Anecdotally from people I know, immigrants seem to be interested in taking up hunting.
PAL numbers are certainly not growing fast, but they have been picking up the past couple of years, as I recall.
As to the last generation -- I have no data other than minor's permits.
If it were legal to plink with handguns other than at a CFO approved range, I imagine there'd be more handgun owners again.

Doug_M
10-03-2014, 05:22 PM
I think it has EVERYTHING to do with the laws. Simply put - it's AGAINST the law to defend one's self witha gun and the laws make it very difficult to do anything else. Most people are law-abiding, both the spirit and the letter - hence, gun ownership took a big hit when the apex of retarded gun laws took root in the 90's.

I see that trend reversing in a big way.

Well I hope you're right but I don't see firearms ownership (lawful) growing to more than 10% of the total population in our lifetime.

Doug_M
10-03-2014, 05:23 PM
Islam and atheism have a LOT in common

Wait, what!?

Shalimar
10-03-2014, 05:33 PM
It is fantasy to think that enough Canadians would if they could.

When it comes to CCW I would if it was legal for me etc.. not from any immediate danger etc of course.. but more "it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it" (and yes I have worked in some areas where such would be a very realistic concern)

Most I think would not ccw as a whole.. but there are a large % of them that would appreciate having access to such fairly easily just in case.. including my wife and b-i-l neither of which can currently do so legally (idiot licenses)

I also know a ton of others whom would be in the same boat as my wife... so it's not fantasy per se.. unless the meaning is everyone carrying the 9mm in their belt etc

Shalimar
10-03-2014, 05:35 PM
Certainly many women seem to be taking up hunting. Sales at Canadian Tire are picking up.
Anecdotally from people I know, immigrants seem to be interested in taking up hunting.
PAL numbers are certainly not growing fast, but they have been picking up the past couple of years, as I recall.
As to the last generation -- I have no data other than minor's permits.
If it were legal to plink with handguns other than at a CFO approved range, I imagine there'd be more handgun owners again.

Don't forget the huge % of ppl that refused to comply and get a c-68 etc license... they are out there in no small #'s to say the least.

Shalimar
10-03-2014, 05:35 PM
Islam and atheism have a LOT in common


Wait, what!?

I agree.. WTF??? :confused1:

Edenchef
10-03-2014, 06:04 PM
If left unchecked this problem (ISIS and followers) will continue to fester for years if not generations. I'll all for bombing them back into the dark ages (oh, wait...).

In the meantime, well equipped or not, I'm standing behind our pork eating crusaders. Go Team CF!
Agreed! Back to the stone age.

Cheers!

Haywire1
10-03-2014, 06:06 PM
Again, bacon would save us. Oh bacon, great and mighty duct tape of the kitchen, is there nothing you cant do?

Edenchef
10-03-2014, 06:12 PM
Again, bacon would save us. Oh bacon, great and mighty duct tape of the kitchen, is there nothing you cant do?
Lower blood cholesterol levels?;)

Cheers!

Shalimar
10-03-2014, 06:17 PM
Again, bacon would save us. Oh bacon, great and mighty duct tape of the kitchen, is there nothing you cant do?

http://www.svrider.com/forum/images/smilies/emot-worship.gifhttp://www.scale4x4rc.org/forums/images/smilies/ngbbs450d0391e9c80.gif


I think this says it all on this one (bacon)

kennymo
10-17-2014, 03:26 PM
Well, six CF-18's just flew over my deck and touched down for refuelling with a C-130 close behind. Unusually large number, they tend to come in twos only. Could these be our boys en route to Europe?

Shalimar
10-17-2014, 04:04 PM
Well, six CF-18's just flew over my deck and touched down for refuelling with a C-130 close behind. Unusually large number, they tend to come in twos only. Could these be our boys en route to Europe?

Given the limited range of the 18.. not too far off,.. ( a primary downfall of the choice of the 18 for our needs)

However given proper logistics the 18's would usually stay in the air unless they need rest/replacement pilots or something else and would have multiple air tanks handy as needed as they endure such a trip.

Granted my exp was not w/the 18.. but the overall premise is the same basic logic.. unless the CF is doing something bizarrely diff than the USAF does.

Billythreefeathers
10-19-2014, 03:40 PM
http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x339/Billythreefeathers/image0011_zps075e70fb.jpg (http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/Billythreefeathers/media/image0011_zps075e70fb.jpg.html)

zulu
10-19-2014, 04:35 PM
Those Dutch bikers would be able to get away with that