Moonlight Graham Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 In this case though...why would ISIS do that? I'm not sure there is a good answer. PR. They've falsely claimed they've been responsible for other attacks. This is the first time ISIS (not ISIS sympathizers) would have attacked anyone outside a middle-east country where they've had significant presence. It's unprecedented, it's out of their modus operandi thus far, so is it unreasonable to make sure we get this right? Why is this idea so ridiculous to some people?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeelious Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Honestly, I feel that the reasons they would claim responsibility are the same reasons they would plan the attack in the first place. Who did it is less important than why ISIS wanted it to happen. (Which, since they are claiming responsibility, they did) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 He could delay it until the end of the fiscal year. That gives him 3 more months. He's not really breaking a promise (kind of but oh well) while allowing more time for 'proper screening'. So the opposition doesn't want the government to bring in refugees while lambasting the government for breaking it's promise to bring in refugees. This very nicely encapsulates the true nature of the dysfunctional state we've driven the world towards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Just wondering, why do you think this? Do you have evidence of this, or is this a theory on your part?Which ever group is behind this they all want chaos and more moderate Muslims to join the zealots. Already the Paris attacks are proving to be working. In Ontario Canada, a Mosque has been fire bombed: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/15/arson-hits-peterboroughs-only-mosque.html This may move a few more moderate Muslims towards the radicals. The rift between Muslims and non Muslims begins to grow as the red necks use this as cover for their racist actions. More countries want to close their borders to refugees. The only logical result is large barb wired fenced compounds where the refugees can be "stored" until the authorities decide what to do with them. Is there a better place to recruit radicals than from a populace placed into confinement? Yes, we are taking the bait hook, line and sinker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Indeed, most of France's allies involved in the fight against ISIS have pledged to increase their efforts........except Canada of course. A shining beacon amongst a bunch of dim bulbs. I just wish he'd get us the hell out of there faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) I will agree that the bombing mission by itself won't end this but withdrawing Canada from world stage at this time would send a horrible message. Letting the old stage burn itself to the ground while laying the foundation for a new one is the way to go. Edited November 16, 2015 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 A shining beacon amongst a bunch of dim bulbs. I just wish he'd get us the hell out of there faster. A shining beacon that says they want to fund and train local "moderate" rebels, which has so far proven a complete failure by the U.S. I have no faith that the Trudeau government has any idea what the hell they're doing either, they just took the "middle-ground" approach between the CPC and NDP during the election for political reasons/votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Letting the old stage burn itself to the ground while laying the foundation for a new one is the way to go. If we let itself burn to the ground, then we are just as responsible as ISIS for innocent lives and an ever growing problem of refugees. The western Western militarism created this mess, it's up to us to help fix it. Neil Macdonald wrote a good piece "Paris attacks: Only 2 equally bad options for taking on ISIS". "Which effectively leaves Western leaders with two options: either continue the current half-baked campaign of airstrikes and military assistance indefinitely, or just disengage and leave." "Neither option is a good one. One of them would cost us our humanity." "Everyone knows airstrikes will not decide this fight. And the U.S.-led campaign to arm and train "moderate" rebels in Syria and troops in Iraq has been an embarrassment, to put it mildly." "Generally, whenever ISIS or its affiliated extremists have shown up, America's proxies have cut and run, often leaving their U.S.-provided guns and hardware for the enemy to scoop up." "But disengaging and letting the Middle East sort itself out would involve a hideous price for the populations on the ground." "ISIS operates by its own grotesque set of the Hama rules, and the massacres that would without question follow an ISIS expansion would validate Pope Francis's observation that what we are seeing today is a piecemeal version of World War III." "There is no Solomonic solution available, and, to make it worse, the brutal truth is that America's so-called coalition of the willing, which invaded Iraq on a false pretext, effectively created ISIS (which, unsurprisingly, has several of Saddam Hussein's former generals among its commanders)." "The West sowed dragons' teeth, which grew into armed fanatics now bent on taking the battle back to the West. And ahead of them, massive rivers of miserable refugees are trudging toward Western soil." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Terrorists don't stop attacking because you don't fight them Eyeball. Its not how they work. If you retreat, if you show weakness, it empowers them. Your reaction is key. If you react by striking out in chaotic free for all, they want that. If when you respond you kill innocent people they want that. If you react and make mistakes they want that. Its psychological war designed to get you to react with emotion not cold, detached professional planning. For the most part the French reacted extremely well to this latest test. They stayed focus when being tempted in different directions. They are not the issue and neither is state security at the moment. The issue now is post traumatic reaction. It causes civilians to react to anyone remotely looking like the enemy as the enemy. That is what the terrorists want. The cold hard reality is though, ISIL is not going to stop, none of the Islamist extremists are. There agenda is to get as many innocent Muslims in Europe as possible attacked and alienated and to scare as many people as they can with random attacks designed to make anyone in a crowd feel nervous. The French air force is not about to lose its temper, nor are French commandos. Its civilians we have to worry about-one angry person lashing out in reaction to perceived slight of being Muslim or because they hate Muslims. Those of us who lived with it, saw it, we I am sorry to say have a very cold, unemotional reaction to terrorists and make no mistake, its to kill them before they kill. The naïve belief they only attack people that attack them is just that. Its not their belief and it has never been their belief. Understand the reality in this attack. They attacked left wing young people, the same people like you who argue they are victims, they only attack people who attack them, they are just misunderstood victims of colonialization. They attacked the very young people who make apologies for them in the West and try portray them as romantic heroes and victims. They chose a target, young naïve people. Its a message they chose carefully by choosing young people in cafes and at music concerts. They didn't go after soldiers. They didn't go after the IDF. They went after unarmed soft civilians. Its what cowards do in asymetrical attacks. This is no longer guerilla warfare, its not glamorous freedom fighters attacking those damned Zionists, its cowards, cowards using the Koran and their political beliefs as their drug to attack. No they don't stop because you hide from them. The boogy man is not going away. There is only one way to deal with them-kill them before they kill. Do I want to volunteer men to die killing them. No. But it will be done. Braver people than me, people I can only defer to with appreciation, will before this is over sacrifice their lives and their children's parents so people like you and I will continue to enjoy our life style. Democracy's price in the coming days will not be cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 If ISIS is claiming responsibility, does it matter? What would the alternate scenarios be? If it's not certain to be ISIS, then the French bombing in Syria is ridiculous theatre, isn't it? Ridiculous theatre that kills people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 If we let itself burn to the ground, then we are just as responsible as ISIS for innocent lives and an ever growing problem of refugees. The western Western militarism created this mess, it's up to us to help fix it. I sometimes think that the enemy in all of this is "certainty", ie. people who are absolutely sure of the right way to proceed. For that reason the enemy is perhaps also politics since no politician will ever stand up and say they don't know what to do, or - on the other side of things - that they forgive the other guy for not knowing how to proceed. That's why I never held George W Bush to an unreasonable standard in his response to, or anticipation of 9/11. What would/could I have done if you were in his place ? Reading your posts on this, I feel that you're conflicted and working through implications of these grave things, as am I. I have always identified as a pacifist however that's theoretical. You need armed forces at a minimum to product yourself, and to protect the innocent. But the black and white of such statement go grey pretty quickly. Thanks for your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 The truth matters. If Iran claimed responsibility on 9/11 and the US went along with it, even though al-Qaeda did it, would it matter? Of course, it would change everything. One alternate scenario would be Islamist sympathizers acting on their own did it, with sympathies to groups like ISIS, but without ISIS in the middle-east having anything to do with it. If countries are going to send jets to bomb countries based on "who did it", the "who" better be correct. Why do the French think ISIS did it? Other than ISIS claiming they did (their word is meaningless). To add, it was mostly Saudi's who attacked on 9/11, but Afghanistan was taken out along with Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 I sometimes think that the enemy in all of this is "certainty", ie. people who are absolutely sure of the right way to proceed. For that reason the enemy is perhaps also politics since no politician will ever stand up and say they don't know what to do, or - on the other side of things - that they forgive the other guy for not knowing how to proceed. That's why I never held George W Bush to an unreasonable standard in his response to, or anticipation of 9/11. What would/could I have done if you were in his place ? Maybe pay attention to those who were saying that Osama was ready to attack the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Maybe pay attention to those who were saying that Osama was ready to attack the US. Were you trying to validate my point about politics and war ? That's what this clip does, I think. Trying to put blame on somebody to gain political points is exactly what I was referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Reading your posts on this, I feel that you're conflicted and working through implications of these grave things, as am I. I have always identified as a pacifist however that's theoretical. You need armed forces at a minimum to product yourself, and to protect the innocent. But the black and white of such statement go grey pretty quickly.I don't believe I'm conflicted any longer. ISIS needs to be stopped through whatever means is necessary. I just hope that the World Leaders have the vision, courage, integrity and smarts to accomplish this and as you say, do not use this for political points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Terrorists don't stop attacking because you don't fight them Eyeball. Its not how they work. If you retreat, if you show weakness, it empowers them. While I don't agree with all your thoughts, I do think this is a good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 The French government has increased the number of air strikes and their frequency. I guess what they were doing before was not working so they arer doing more of it. A government spokesman announced that these latest strikes have been more successful since they have changed some "targeting protocols". You know what this means? It means that the conditions for bombing which had been in place to minimize civilian collateral action have changed. That means more "collateral action", more really pi$$ed civilians, more radicalized Muslims and more suicide bombers. Way to go France - you took it hook, line and sinker. Get our Canadian jets back home as soon as possible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 ...Get our Canadian jets back home as soon as possible! Sorry, but Canada's American made "jets" and American made bombs will not be coming home soon...maybe in time for Xmas....or St. Patty's Day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Suit yourself. In his reply to Reefer, Bonam called Muslims living in the ghettos in France as suicide bombers and mass shooters. You continued it. Bonam quite rightly drew reference to the fact that other disaffected groups generally do not give rise to radicals. I commented on the insanity of religious primitives expecting a heavenly reward for acts of drooling barbarism. Which bit do you take umbrage at? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 That's why I never held George W Bush to an unreasonable standard in his response to, or anticipation of 9/11. What would/could I have done if you were in his place ? Unreasonable standard? Would it have been unreasonable for him to stand up to Cheney and the warmongers when they told him they decided to invade Iraq? And how much effort was made to bring bin Laden to trial without invading Afghanistan? I recall there was an offer by the Taliban to extradite him to a neutral country for a trial. Bush swatted this away as he and his bunch had already decided to go to war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 I don't believe I'm conflicted any longer. ISIS needs to be stopped through whatever means is necessary. I think that stopping ISIS is an awesome idea - I don't know how you would have been conflicted in the first place. How exactly do you propose to stop an organization that is so successful at recruiting disaffected people the world over? It seems like bombing sufficient to kill 2 attracts 4 more to take their place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 To add, it was mostly Saudi's who attacked on 9/11, but Afghanistan was taken out along with Iraq. Of course. Because the Saudi regime are our allies, because they'll do mostly what we want them to do, for money and arms sales & our military support. We can't dare mess with that relationship because they're the biggest oil producers in the world, and if they manipulate oil prices (like they did during the 1973 oil crisis), our economy is screwed. As for Russia, Iran, Cuba, Assad's Syria, pre-2001 Afghanistan, Saddam's Iraq, Gaddafi's Libya, well they dare stand up to us and won't do as we want them to do, so they're our "enemy". EVIL!!! How dare they act in their own interests that happen to be against our interests! Sure those are some bad dudes in those regimes, but that doesn't prevent us from supporting horrible regimes around the world...like Saudi Arabia or Saddam in the 80's or Bin Laden/mujahideen in the 80's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 I don't believe I'm conflicted any longer. ISIS needs to be stopped through whatever means is necessary. I just hope that the World Leaders have the vision, courage, integrity and smarts to accomplish this and as you say, do not use this for political points. I think I like this new WCR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 If the Americans and their allies decide to stop ISIS, they can do it - easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 If the Americans and their allies decide to stop ISIS, they can do it - easily. ...said NATO about the Taliban in 2001. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.