Trudeau's First Moves

[ReeferMadness]

I understand what everyone is saying on this topic but really do we not have a responsibility to fight terrorism when they are blowing international flights out of the sky? What are your suggestions RM? I certainly don't have any but we can't withdraw our combative support can we?

Terrorism is a crime. If you want to reduce crime, you need to understand the root causes.You wouldn't use the same strategy to lower the rate of murders committed by organized crime as you would to eliminate murder arising from domestic violence. Terrorism is used by a whole bunch of different groups with different motivations so there is no one size fits all model.

With respect to Al Qaeda and ISIS, our governments and media are feeding us sh*t. We're being presented with facts without context. Who is supporting and funding ISIS? Who is selling them weapons and ammunition? Why are they so successful at recruiting people? And what are the interests of the various regional and global powers? Iran,Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, USA. They all have their own interests and it's rare to find anyone who can dig beneath the official statements to determine what is really going on. International politics is a cesspool of hypocrisy.

Finally, we do have some data on what actually works to fight organizations that use terrorism as a tactic.

The Global Terrorism Index has some useful observations to offer about that, too. It points out that a great many terrorist organisations have actually gone out of business in the past 45 years. Only 10 percent of them actually won, took power, and disbanded their terrorist wings. And only 7 percent were eliminated by the direct application of military force.

EIGHTY percent of them were ended by a combination of better policing and the creation of a political process that addressed the grievances of those who supported the terrorism. You don’t fix the problem by fighting poverty or raising educational levels; that kind of thing has almost nothing to do with the rise of terrorism. You have to deal with the particular grievances that obsess specific ethnic, religious or political groups.

So, until someone in the government stands up and says something about terrorism that has the ring of truth, I would prefer that we not made things worse by dropping bombs on a situation I don't understand.

[ToadBrother]

Terrorism is a crime. If you want to reduce crime, you need to understand the root causes.You wouldn't use the same strategy to lower the rate of murders committed by organized crime as you would to eliminate murder arising from domestic violence. Terrorism is used by a whole bunch of different groups with different motivations so there is no one size fits all model.

Invading and annexing sovereign states and murdering millions of their citizens is also a crime. I agree that root causes need to be understood, much as a lot of experts poured over how movements like Nazism, Fascism and Japanese militarism arose in the 1920s and 1930s. But that didn't change the fact that the Axis Powers needed killin', and lots and lots of it.

[ReeferMadness]

Well, I have heard that we need hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground to defeat isil. Why not? Let's do it once and for all.

We had troops on the ground in Afghanistan. And Iraq. Did it work "once and for all"? No. And there is no reason to think this will be any different. Derek thinks we should occupy (or bomb) the middle east for decades. Do you agree with that?

[Smallc]

On what do you base this statement? Do you know how much territory ISIS would control today if not for the bombing?

They seem to be spreading worldwide. If we want to solve this, we have to stop getting people to believe in nonsense.

[Smallc]

Was it that different? The Allied armies and air forces literally bombed and shot their way through Occupied Europe, and a lot of German civilians died as Nazi Germany was literally pummeled into ruins. Ask the folks of Dresden and Tokyo. Uniforms don't mean a thing from 20,000 feet.

We have a lot higher standards in all areas of our society today. The reality is the populace won't accept such a thing, so it isn't going to happen. The bombing campaign, at the beginning, was very successful and I supported it. At this point, the targets are dwindling, the Russians are involved, and the good guys are not readily apparent when it comes right down to it. None of this has stopped the steady stream of migrants into Europe, nor did it stop the Russian airliner from being blown up.

[ToadBrother]

We have a lot higher standards in all areas of our society today. The reality is the populace won't accept such a thing, so it isn't going to happen. The bombing campaign, at the beginning, was very successful and I supported it. At this point, the targets are dwindling, the Russians are involved, and the good guys are not readily apparent when it comes right down to it. None of this has stopped the steady stream of migrants into Europe, nor did it stop the Russian airliner from being blown up.

If ISIL is moving to attacking civilian aircraft, then we're dealing with an enemy that isn't content to get shot up in Iraq in Syria.

As to standards, in total war, the only standard is winning, because the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.

[ReeferMadness]

Invading and annexing sovereign states and murdering millions of their citizens is also a crime. I agree that root causes need to be understood, much as a lot of experts poured over how movements like Nazism, Fascism and Japanese militarism arose in the 1920s and 1930s. But that didn't change the fact that the Axis Powers needed killin', and lots and lots of it.

So, first Saddam was like Hitler. Now, ISIS, which was created in the vacuum left after Saddam was deposed, are like Nazis?

[Derek 2.0]

We had troops on the ground in Afghanistan. And Iraq. Did it work "once and for all"? No. And there is no reason to think this will be any different. Derek thinks we should occupy (or bomb) the middle east for decades. Do you agree with that?

Why are you misrepresenting what I said? I clearly stated we should support those nations that are unable to contend with radical Islam on their own, and that is not limited to the Middle East, but globally........as mentioned earlier, there are currently two Canadians being held hostage by a radical Islamic group in the Philippines. Now if we as a nation could provide any support the Filipino people might need, and not all cases would require "boots on the ground" or airstrikes, I would be in favor of that too.

[Derek 2.0]

So, first Saddam was like Hitler. Now, ISIS, which was created in the vacuum left after Saddam was deposed, are like Nazis?

You've yet to square the circle as to what is Assad........no vacuum in Syria, and like Saddam, Assad had a massive army.

[WestCoastRunner]

We had troops on the ground in Afghanistan. And Iraq. Did it work "once and for all"? No. And there is no reason to think this will be any different. Derek thinks we should occupy (or bomb) the middle east for decades. Do you agree with that?

Aviation security world wide has been compromised. Let's do something about it. Do you want your family vulnerable to terrorist attacks?

Edited November 6, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[ReeferMadness]

Why are you misrepresenting what I said? I clearly stated we should support those nations that are unable to contend with radical Islam on their own, and that is not limited to the Middle East, but globally........as mentioned earlier, there are currently two Canadians being held hostage by a radical Islamic group in the Philippines. Now if we as a nation could provide any support the Filipino people might need, and not all cases would require "boots on the ground" or airstrikes, I would be in favor of that too.

You lamented that Obama pulled out of Iraq after "only" a decade and presented Korea, which the USA occupied for 60 years, as an example of success. I would say I represented your points pretty accurately.

[Derek 2.0]

You lamented that Obama pulled out of Iraq after "only" a decade and presented Korea, which the USA occupied for 60 years, as an example of success. I would say I represented your points pretty accurately.

How does that equate to occupy the Middle East to combat radical Islam?

[ReeferMadness]

You've yet to square the circle as to what is Assad........no vacuum in Syria, and like Saddam, Assad had a massive army.

The vacuum in Syria was created by the civil war.

And the mess that is now Syria has its roots in its arbitrary creation by France, its use as a chew-toy by the USSR during the cold war and the interests of the various stronger countries that surround it. Unless and until somebody demonstrates and is willing to elucidate an understanding of the situation that makes sense to adults, I don't support military intervention. In other words, I expect my government to treat me as an intelligent citizen who deserves information, not as a sheep to be manipulated. I know that's a lot to ask but I'm funny that way.

[WestCoastRunner]

The vacuum in Syria was created by the civil war.

And the mess that is now Syria has its roots in its arbitrary creation by France, its use as a chew-toy by the USSR during the cold war and the interests of the various stronger countries that surround it. Unless and until somebody demonstrates and is willing to elucidate an understanding of the situation that makes sense to adults, I don't support military intervention. In other words, I expect my government to treat me as an intelligent citizen who deserves information, not as a sheep to be manipulated. I know that's a lot to ask but I'm funny that way.

RM, what do you suggest we do to prevent international flights from being blown out of the sky worldwide?

[Derek 2.0]

The vacuum in Syria was created by the civil war.

But wait a minute, you suggested if Saddam was still in power, ISIS never would have posed a threat in Iraq.........But Assad had a far stronger army, yet a power vacuum was created by a civil war.........So Saddam in power = No ISIS in Iraq, but Assad in power = Civil war allowing ISIS.

Your logic doesn't jive.

[WestCoastRunner]

But wait a minute, you suggested if Saddam was still in power, ISIS never would have posed a threat in Iraq.........But Assad had a far stronger army, yet a power vacuum was created by a civil war.........So Saddam in power = No ISIS in Iraq, but Assad in power = Civil war allowing ISIS.

Your logic doesn't jive.

But guys, does it really matter what has happened. The point is, 'How do we move forward'?

[ReeferMadness]

Aviation security world wide has been compromised.

I don't know if it has or it hasn't. I don't know who was behind the bombing - or even if it was a bomb at all. I find it curious that the US and the UK have indicated it was a bomb before any investigation has taken place. Clearly, if it was a bomb, it was directed at the Russians who have recently become militarily involved in Syria. Are the governments who are stating it was a bomb trying to panic Russian civilians?

Let's do something about it.

"something" meaning anything at all? or "something" meaning something that will improve the situation. I'm OK with doing something that will improve the situation but that implies that we understand enough about the situation to do something meaningful. And I'm sure that governments know more than they're saying but until they tell me what that is, I'd prefer we do nothing. So, far, if you trace the history of the Mujahideen to Al Qaeda to ISIS, it appears that military intervention by western countries has only made things worse.

Do you want your family vulnerable to terrorist attacks?

No. That's why I want to ensure that we are only doing something if it will improve the situation.

[Derek 2.0]

But guys, does it really matter what has happened. The point is, 'How do we move forward'?

I agree fully, right or wrong, the present and the future is what has to be addressed.

[WestCoastRunner]

I don't know if it has or it hasn't. I don't know who was behind the bombing - or even if it was a bomb at all. I find it curious that the US and the UK have indicated it was a bomb before any investigation has taken place. Clearly, if it was a bomb, it was directed at the Russians who have recently become militarily involved in Syria. Are the governments who are stating it was a bomb trying to panic Russian civilians?

"something" meaning anything at all? or "something" meaning something that will improve the situation. I'm OK with doing something that will improve the situation but that implies that we understand enough about the situation to do something meaningful. And I'm sure that governments know more than they're saying but until they tell me what that is, I'd prefer we do nothing. So, far, if you trace the history of the Mujahideen to Al Qaeda to ISIS, it appears that military intervention by western countries has only made things worse.

No. That's why I want to ensure that we are only doing something if it will improve the situation.

We know that U.S. Intel has discovered chatter that assumes it's ISIS. But yes, it's yet to be confirmed. The lax in security reveals that airports all over the world are vulnerable and there are many reports to suggest this but it hasn't been acted upon until now.

[ReeferMadness]

RM, what do you suggest we do to prevent international flights from being blown out of the sky worldwide?

I suggest that we understand what is going on and make common cause with regional powers before we do anything at all. I know that isn't a very satisfying answer but I think that there is a convincing case to be made that military action by multiple parties, who hold various contradictory interests in the results, have only made things worse.

[WestCoastRunner]

I suggest that we understand what is going on and make common cause with regional powers before we do anything at all. I know that isn't a very satisfying answer but I think that there is a convincing case to be made that military action by multiple parties, who hold various contradictory interests in the results, have only made things worse.

If we know that ISIS is causing these explosions,what do you suggest?

[ReeferMadness]

But wait a minute, you suggested if Saddam was still in power, ISIS never would have posed a threat in Iraq.........But Assad had a far stronger army, yet a power vacuum was created by a civil war.........So Saddam in power = No ISIS in Iraq, but Assad in power = Civil war allowing ISIS.

Your logic doesn't jive.

As previously mentioned, the mess that is Syria wasn't created in a day. And Syria is a particular case where the US and its allies appeared to be hoping that somehow, both of the main combatants would lose. They didn't want Assad in and they didn't want ISIS in. So, they supported a force which promptly collapsed and disbanded. Or are those 5 remaining soldiers still out there somewhere?

And your clever comparison of Iraq and Syria really isn't so clever. Saddam wasn't a nice guy but while he was in power, there was no Al Qaeda or ISIS (contrary to what the lying Bush administration claimed). Deposing Saddam combined with dismantling of the Baathist regime left a power vaccum in Iraq which was filled by Al Qaeda and later ISIS. ISIS was able to use Iraq as a base to move into Syria once the civil war started.

If this mess is to be solved, there has to be some sort of agreement amongst the various players (the "west", Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China) and it has to take into account the factions on the ground. Then, you have a chance at a government of the people arising from the results.

[Smallc]

Aviation security world wide has been compromised.

When has that not been true in the last....20 years?

[Smallc]

RM, what do you suggest we do to prevent international flights from being blown out of the sky worldwide?

Well, we could start with better airline security in places outside of North America. Egypt, for example.

[Smallc]

But wait a minute, you suggested if Saddam was still in power, ISIS never would have posed a threat in Iraq.........But Assad had a far stronger army, yet a power vacuum was created by a civil war.........So Saddam in power = No ISIS in Iraq, but Assad in power = Civil war allowing ISIS.

The problem with your logic being, of course, that Assad is not in power in most of Syria, and hasn't been since 2011.