War Against ISIL

[Big Guy]

Let me make it clear Big Guy,...insincere.. knock off the sanctimonious responses to me.. putrid... apologizing for terrorism... insult... sanctimonious bilge.

And you wonder why I generally do not bother to respond to you. I know exactly how you feel. You have stated it here time and time and time and time again. If you want to get personal, I do not think you are a bad person. I do not know you. I do not want to know you. I think that you do believe what you say you believe. I think you have some knowledge of the areas of which you comment. I do understand what you believe and am no longer interested in what you believe.

But I do find you rude and my exchanges of opinion with you to be unpleasant and not informative. So I try to minimize those. But that is just me.

And "You or anyone else want to continue to try explain away terrorism to each other knock yourselves out." - we were doing just that when you decided to bring in your thoughts with your unique way of making friends by again being rude to those discussing this thread.

As to your finding my words and posts as sanctimonious bilge, that is unfortunate. I will take your criticism in it's obvious intent, consider it in terms of your other posts and give it the appropriate thought, time and consideration.

Thank you for your post.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Big Guy

[Black Dog]

It's not just about the West. Arab countries are also involved, and supportive of the action. But it's not a conventional war, wth a "winner" and "loser" and day of victory. It's just about degrading a terrorist organization. Cutting off it's funding, and diminishing it's military capabilities.

Ah so we'll be going into Saudi Arabia soon?

[Rue]

1-I know exactly how you feel.

2-I do understand what you believe and am no longer interested in what you believe.

3- we were doing just that when you decided to bring in your thoughts with your unique way of making friends by again being rude to those discussing this thread.

4-As to your finding my words and posts as sanctimonious bilge, that is unfortunate. I will take your criticism in it's obvious intent, consider it in terms of your other posts and give it the appropriate thought, time and consideration.

Thank you for your post.

Passive aggression to me is something I have worked with for many years. I consider your words passive aggressive.

In regards to 1, you do not know how I feel, you presume to. I have not shared my feelings with you nor would I.

In regards to 2, you have demonstrated you do not understand my positions and more importantly falsley mistate them and misrepresent them.

In regards to 3, my rudeness is not initiated just directed back at its source-I throw back what is spilled on this forum. No more no less.

Don't piss up wind Big Guy and your face won't get wet. It really is that simple.

One last thing I find your comments about terrorists sanctimonious but to be specific and accurate these words:

"I will take your criticism in it's obvious intent, consider it in terms of your other posts and give it the appropriate thought, time and consideration."

simply show you are being passive aggressive and doinga piss poor job of trying to sound condescending.

What you have done though is do exactly what I wanted, and that is go to the well one too many times with that pseuto diplomacy and displayed the real you-someone who comes on this forum to insult but pretend he's engaging in civil discourse.

It quite Canadian, this habit of smiling when you call someone a derogatory name isn't it? Careful now. I might take that tea cup and rearrange someone's grin with it.

Tea time. Not with me genius.

[dre]

Don't piss up wind Big Guy and your face won't get wet. It really is that simple.

I might take that tea cup and rearrange someone's grin with it.

Bleat wretch moan?

[Big Guy]

Passive aggression to me is something I have worked with for many years. I consider your words passive aggressive.

In regards to 1, you do not know how I feel, you presume to. I have not shared my feelings with you nor would I.

In regards to 2, you have demonstrated you do not understand my positions and more importantly falsley mistate them and misrepresent them.

In regards to 3, my rudeness is not initiated just directed back at its source-I throw back what is spilled on this forum. No more no less.

Don't piss up wind Big Guy and your face won't get wet. It really is that simple.

One last thing I find your comments about terrorists sanctimonious but to be specific and accurate these words:

"I will take your criticism in it's obvious intent, consider it in terms of your other posts and give it the appropriate thought, time and consideration."

simply show you are being passive aggressive and doinga piss poor job of trying to sound condescending.

What you have done though is do exactly what I wanted, and that is go to the well one too many times with that pseuto diplomacy and displayed the real you-someone who comes on this forum to insult but pretend he's engaging in civil discourse.

It quite Canadian, this habit of smiling when you call someone a derogatory name isn't it? Careful now. I might take that tea cup and rearrange someone's grin with it.

Tea time. Not with me genius.

You are absolutely correct - Big Guy is passive , aggressive. Big Guy does not know your feelings, he has demonstrated that he does not understand your positions and more importantly falsley mistates them and misrepresents them. Your rudeness is not initiated just directed back at its source - you throw back what is spilled on this forum. No more no less.

The last thing that what Big Guy posts simply shows he is being passive aggressive and doinga piss poor job of trying to sound condescending.

What Big Guy has done is exactly what Rue wanted, and that is go to the well one too many times with that pseuto diplomacy and displayed the real you-someone who comes on this forum to insult but pretend he's engaging in civil discourse.

See, I fully agree with you. As to tea, I am quite selective with whom I share my time.

I am convinced;

Israel is very good. Anybody who disagrees is very bad.

Rue is correct. Everybody who disagrees is wrong.

Big Guy is a passive aggressive poster who has no idea of what is going on in the Middle East, is an apologist for terrorists, an anti-Semite and a sanctimonious jackass who should keep his mouth shut.

There, you see, I do get it!!!

Now please go away, shoo, shoo and go try to get the attention of somebody else.

You appear to have missed part of my last post: I am not interested in what you think.

You are probably normally a nice person. Go converse with somebody who appreciates that.

You may assume from this post that I do not.

[dre]

Israel is very good. Anybody who disagrees is very bad.

Rue is correct. Everybody who disagrees is wrong.

Not just wrong... A dispicable, disgusting, jew hating, terrorist loving, anti-semetic, terror apologist and racist bigot!

[Army Guy]

That is interesting. Do you really feel that this is a venue to try to turn someone over to your side?

I have not seen it happen on this or any other board. I do not see the process as an argument or exchange of angry accusations. I would like to think that when one states an opinion that you are requesting to be challenged on the data that you are using to formulate that opinion. Once you engage some poster(s) who have different opinions based on different set of data then all parties are better for the discourse.

I think the successful end result of any serious discussion here is the abandonment of any myopic prejudiced view and an understanding of those who disagree with you. You still maintain your view but have now a better appreciation of the arguments of those who oppose you.

Problems start when the name calling, finger pointing and disrespect take over the discussion. Then not only are the participants no better for the effort but the issue becomes lost in personality clashes.

Yes i do, there are a lot of topics on this forum that are very interesting to me, and i do enjoy debating with everyone, but there are some topics that are near and dear to me, and i'm very passionate about, those topics i do my best to persuade them to see it my way....

Don't get me wrong Big Guy their is a learning curve for both sides ,mine included and sometimes i do see it their way, and change my opinon.

[Big Guy]

...sometimes i do see it their way, and change my opinon.

Congratulations, the ability to change one's mind based on a valid argument is a sign of intelligence as well as a unique and positive trait. It is a trait to which I aspire but have difficulty achieving.

[Big Guy]

We are finally getting some responses (but not necessarily answers) from PM Harper on Canada's involvement in this war. Looks like we are going to escalate our involvement.

Many years ago, I learned that when a politician does not have an answer, does not know or just does not want to tell the awful truth then the excuse is “this is the right thing to do”. That was Harper's response to our escalating involvement in Afghanistan.

The other phrase that is used when the politician does not know or just does not want to tell the awful truth then he responds with “this is necessary and noble”. PM Harper used that as a response to questions on an exit strategy if we get more involved in this war.

These are not answers or not even excuses. This is a rationalization of doing something and being unable to explain why. It says “trust me I know what I'm doing but I'm not gonna tell ya”.

Sorry, not good enough for me.

[dre]

Yes i do, there are a lot of topics on this forum that are very interesting to me, and i do enjoy debating with everyone, but there are some topics that are near and dear to me, and i'm very passionate about, those topics i do my best to persuade them to see it my way....

Don't get me wrong Big Guy their is a learning curve for both sides ,mine included and sometimes i do see it their way, and change my opinon.

I understand your perspective and appreciate your passion. I think its admirable that you want to help people in various downtrodden areas.

I just think youre supporting a really lousy and inefficient way of doing it, and one that could just as easily make things worse for people as it could better. If you want to help people, why not spend the money in areas that would give us a way bigger bang for our buck?

And in general... i just dont think the people that support putting boots on the ground against ISIL understand whats going on over there, or understand what dislodging ISIL is really going to take or the future ramifications even if we are successful. Sunnis in Iraq and Syria want self-determination, and they are willing to fight for it. Killing every single member of ISIL wont change that, and it wont avoid the inevitable partitioning of Syria and Iraq.

[Big Guy]

War in Syria is escalating with more innocents slaughtered. Bomb attack on a school.

Homs (Syria) governor Talal Barazzi described the attack as a "terrorist act and a desperate attempt that targeted school children". The blasts happened as children were leaving the Ekremah al-Makhzoumi primary school, said an official with the Homs governorate who refused to be named.

The first explosion was from a car bomb parked and detonated in front of the school, followed minutes later by a suicide bomber who drove by and detonated his explosives-laden car, said the anonymous official.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/children-killed-homs-double-blasts-201410113272780724.html

So who was behind this?

It was not Assad since he already governs this territory.

It apparently was not ISIS since they are reported to be concentrated in Iraq and fighting the Kurds. Although it may be ISIS.

Most probably it was the “good” Syrian rebels. Those guys who are going to provide the ground troops to take over Syria after the good guys coalition finished softening up ISIS with lots of bombs.

Maybe it was another wing of Al Queda?

And Canada is joining this war in which we don't really know who is our enemy.

Why – Because it is “necessary and noble”.

[GostHacked]

Ah so we'll be going into Saudi Arabia soon?

A very good question. One I have posed many times, with NO response at all. I am very curious as to why it has not been answered. Which reminded me of a political-satire bit I did a couple years ago.

[Bonam]

A very good question. One I have posed many times, with NO response at all. I am very curious as to why it has not been answered. Which reminded me of a political-satire bit I did a couple years ago.

Answered by who? No one here is a head of state with the authority to launch an invasion of Saudi Arabia, in case you are unaware.

[Bonam]

And in general... i just dont think the people that support putting boots on the ground against ISIL understand whats going on over there, or understand what dislodging ISIL is really going to take or the future ramifications even if we are successful. Sunnis in Iraq and Syria want self-determination, and they are willing to fight for it. Killing every single member of ISIL wont change that, and it wont avoid the inevitable partitioning of Syria and Iraq.

I think it's obvious that the borders of many middle-eastern nations need to be redrawn. And not by Western politicians or UN proclamations, but simply by letting people there fight it out, as Europeans fought it out for thousands of years before finally arriving at a stable set of borders / exhausting themselves.

Sunni and Shia do not get along and should not be made to co-exist in the same states when they do not want to.

It seems obvious that Iraq and Syria need to be partitioned, and that much was obvious about Iraq for a decade now.

As for fighting IS... as long as it's just air strikes, it's just a matter of having some live targets to test the latest toys on. "Boots on the ground" would be a dumb mistake, which, given that the US political system is optimized for making as many mistakes as possible, I'm sure it will make...

[GostHacked]

Answered by who? No one here is a head of state with the authority to launch an invasion of Saudi Arabia, in case you are unaware.

We can keep looking as to where the terrorism is, instead we could focus on where it is coming from. This new war with ISIS is jut a continuation on the perpetual war that is the war on terror. Great job so far.

There is good reason to suspect that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been directly supporting some of the terrorism going on. In Syria and in Iraq. But it depends on which side you are on. Freedom fighters? Terrorists? Seems like a very blurred line as to which is which. Iran seems to be supporting one side, but yet no mention of the players on the other side. The Sunni/Shiite elements really start to stand out and tell you the real players are.

I guess it's no longer an 'Iraq problem'. It's a US problem.

Interesting twist in this whole story is ISIS. So now, terrorists are fighting terrorists. If this was the real plan behind the scenes, then Bra-F'n-vo. So since the terrorists on both sides are being armed, the perpetual war goes on destroying cities and killing many people in the process. All while making money selling arms to both sides. What a racket.

All we get is Peacocking from our so called 'leaders'. Do they know who and what they are really supporting here?

[dre]

As for fighting IS... as long as it's just air strikes, it's just a matter of having some live targets to test the latest toys on. "Boots on the ground" would be a dumb mistake, which, given that the US political system is optimized for making as many mistakes as possible, I'm sure it will make...

The problem is its a slippery slope... When the airstrikes dont work to destroy ISIL there will be a lot of pressure on politicians to take that next step. Thats the problem with interventionalist foreign policy. And in our particular case we have a prime minister who thought it was a gigantic mistake that we didnt get bogged down in a 10 year war in Iraq in the first place.

I have this funny feeling that before long Canadians will be dying to prevent sunni Arabs in Iraq and Syria the right to political freedom. I hope Im wrong, but Id bet you a beer.

[bush_cheney2004]

Meh.....PM Chretien was all in for ground troops if needed during the Kosovo War:

.Although the current air offensive against Yugoslavia looks ready to continue for the time being, Canada will take part in a ground invasion of Kosovo if called on by NATO, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said on Wednesday.

Chretien told Parliament that Canada, as a founding member of NATO, could hardly sit on the sidelines during a ground attack.

". . . If some day we're confronted with the necessity to change, to send some ground troops, we will do so with the others," Chretien said. "We won't be the one not to be a member of the team."

[On Guard for Thee]

Meh.....PM Chretien was all in for ground troops if needed during the Kosovo War:

.Although the current air offensive against Yugoslavia looks ready to continue for the time being, Canada will take part in a ground invasion of Kosovo if called on by NATO, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said on Wednesday.

Chretien told Parliament that Canada, as a founding member of NATO, could hardly sit on the sidelines during a ground attack.

". . . If some day we're confronted with the necessity to change, to send some ground troops, we will do so with the others," Chretien said. "We won't be the one not to be a member of the team."

Ah but he did know how to beal with Bush on Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

PM Chretien also sent poorly equipped Canadian Forces to Afghanistan. Why give PM Harper more grief over identical decisions ?

Oh wait, I know why....

[On Guard for Thee]

PM Chretien also sent poorly equipped Canadian Forces to Afghanistan. Why give PM Harper more grief over identical decisions ?

Oh wait, I know why....

Harper's grief comes from the fact he can't seem to make a decision.

[Derek 2.0]

Harper's grief comes from the fact he can't seem to make a decision.

That's not true, both the Tories and NDP's differing positions are clearly known.........The Liberals are the ones sans a position, already weighing the political calculus between antiwar sentiment from within their Quebec caucus versus a more “proactive approach”, as favored in English Canada…………

[On Guard for Thee]

That's not true, both the Tories and NDP's differing positions are clearly known.........The Liberals are the ones sans a position, already weighing the political calculus between antiwar sentiment from within their Quebec caucus versus a more “proactive approach”, as favored in English Canada…………

How would the tories position be known? They can't seem to even figure out how many boots they have on the ground. And they may or may not have a debate/vote in the house or maybe not and we are "weighing the options" bla bla bla. Over and over again.

[On Guard for Thee]

One day we have 69 troops there, the next it's somehow changed to 26. Shouldn't the PM know that sort of stuff? They obviously haven't made any real decisions yet. Why not just say that?

[Bonam]

The problem is its a slippery slope... When the airstrikes dont work to destroy ISIL there will be a lot of pressure on politicians to take that next step.

Air strikes can always work... just depends on the kinds of bombs you use!

[Derek 2.0]

How would the tories position be known? They can't seem to even figure out how many boots they have on the ground. And they may or may not have a debate/vote in the house or maybe not and we are "weighing the options" bla bla bla. Over and over again.

Their intent to have a vote (next week) is well known........likewise it is know how both the Tories and NDP will vote.....Does anyone know how the Trudeau Liberals will vote? They can vote in favour of military action like past Liberal Governments and alienate their supporters in Quebec, or they can vote against military action to maintain support from Quebec and be shunned by moderates/red Tories in the ROC as not supporting action against those that commit genocide, well granting the request for support by the ever so popular (in Canada anyways) President Obama………..The Liberals can’t have it both ways and eventually Trudeau will piss off some of his supporters.