Gunfire At Canadian Parliament
- Thread starter EagerBeaver
- Start date
You never like to see stuff like this happen especially in your own backyard.
This is a result of Canada's front line stance on the war on terror. Canada was doing just fine with humanitary aide, peace keeping, and escorting wheat in Somalia. Then the US dragged or bullied Canada into their oil and terror war.
Unlike the US, Canada was never a target for acts of terror but not anymore. Getting involved in US backed wars has not only risk the lives of our soldiers overseas but now the lives of people here in Canada.
We can thank the war mongering US for this!!!
This is a result of Canada's front line stance on the war on terror. Canada was doing just fine with humanitary aide, peace keeping, and escorting wheat in Somalia. Then the US dragged or bullied Canada into their oil and terror war.
Unlike the US, Canada was never a target for acts of terror but not anymore. Getting involved in US backed wars has not only risk the lives of our soldiers overseas but now the lives of people here in Canada.
We can thank the war mongering US for this!!!
People have to do something, what you would want us to do? Just look at the ground and pretend nothing happened? Those group are terrible, and the world has to make a stance to erradicate them. If it would be me, that would be much faster than that. Syria is lost... period. There is only one solution...
This is total fucking bullshit! If not for US airstrikes, ISIS would have complete control of Iraq and Syria right now. You believe Canada would peacefully coexist with these countries? Do you plan on converting to Islam? If not, your throat gets slashed dude. These people are religious nutcases. ISIS is getting a ton of money and they are attracting lunatics from all over the world (including Canada) to battle for their cause. Do you think Canadian authorities seized this guy's passport for no reason?
You don't think that the US has destabilized the region? If not for the invasion of Iraq and the American support for dictatorships, ISIS wouldn't exist.
Strictly from a military standpoint, it doesn't make sense to get involved in a conflict without clear goals and an exit strategy. Bombing may slow down ISIS, but nobody imagines that it will defeat them. What has to happen for the bombing to stop? Is bombing going to make the Iraqi militia competent? Will it stabilize their government? Will it slow down the recruitment efforts of ISIS or increase their number? Is the goal to negotiate with ISIS? Should Iraq be divided or is the US still trying to unify it?
Strictly from a military standpoint, it doesn't make sense to get involved in a conflict without clear goals and an exit strategy. Bombing may slow down ISIS, but nobody imagines that it will defeat them. What has to happen for the bombing to stop? Is bombing going to make the Iraqi militia competent? Will it stabilize their government? Will it slow down the recruitment efforts of ISIS or increase their number? Is the goal to negotiate with ISIS? Should Iraq be divided or is the US still trying to unify it?
Yes but that is past history and water under the bridge, we can't change what happened now.
I have a good friend who served as an attorney in Iraq with the US military (JAG) and he told me the problems are not easily resolved and are centuries old (Sunnis vs. Shiites), and the local governments are corrupted. This is a regional problem. The question of whether Iraq should be divided up into 2 or 3 countries is a good one, but we should not let ISIS control those peoples. Answer is probably boots on the ground unfortunately. That is what my friend in the US military said. He does not think it should be our boots, question is whose should it be?
Personally I think the US dealt with issues that were long festering, and the rest of the world was going to deal with them sooner or later. Those who are brainwashed and pussywhipped by their media blame the problems on the USA. I say stand up and look at the reality. The reality sucks. The reality is these problems were coming and they are not USA problems, they were and are western civilization problems.
Convert to Islam, or get your throat slashed. This is the ultimate goal of ISIS.
The shooter's mother works in a management capacity for Immigration Canada. I just read about it in The Gazette.
By the way, the comments on US policy in Iraq are off base since it's being reported that this Canadian Jihadist wanted to join the fight with ISIS in Syria, not Iraq. The US has never militarily intervened in Syria. That country's problems are a result of its own ineffective government. To blame the USA for all of the problems in the world because we either did/did not intervene is absurd. The extremely poor historians in this thread seem to forget that the USA's isolationist policies were criticized before World War I and World War II. Did the USA have anything to do with the starting of either of those wars? Of course not. The Europeans managed to fuck around and create two world wars, and the USA ended up getting sucked into both wars because of unprovoked attacks on USA shipping and trade (not to mention an unprovoked attack on the US Navy at Pearl Harbor). Since World War II ended, it dawned on US politicians that it is not in the USA's interest to let others fuck around and dictate policies that impact on the whole world.
There are very few posters in this thread who would get a passing grade in college level world or US history. It's too bad Merlot has not posted because he usually contributes positively on historical analytical threads and has some actual knowledge on the subject.
There are very few posters in this thread who would get a passing grade in college level world or US history. It's too bad Merlot has not posted because he usually contributes positively on historical analytical threads and has some actual knowledge on the subject.
Sergeant-At-Arms Saluted As Hero!
He's 58 years old, but looks like a pretty big dude, and I would not want to mess with him:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/canada-shootings-hero/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
He's 58 years old, but looks like a pretty big dude, and I would not want to mess with him:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/canada-shootings-hero/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Does the following not count as military intervention?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria
The following is quoted from the article:
At the direction of President Obama, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency played an active role since the early stages of the Syrian Civil War. The U.S. originally supplied the moderate rebels of the Free Syrian Army with non-lethal aid but soon escalated to providing training, cash and intelligence to selected rebel commanders
This strike in September was done with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Syrian government!!! I am talking about noncooperative military operations. The whole Arab world requested this intervention!!!!!!!!!!! The Saudis had a female fighter pilot involved. Geez!
By the way the CIA is not military so I have no idea what you are talking about! Do you have any idea about what the US branches of government are?
I concur TheDon.
For every innocent person the US kills in the Middle East 100 jihadists will pop up.
Boy do i miss Jean Chretien..
Oh Boy,
This really is a ridiculous statement. The causes for extremism related to Islam possibly involved in the current situation go back at least to the break up of the Ottoman Empire, and much further. Far more recently there's a lot more involvement by other countries way beyond this very narrow short-sighted excuse labeled as "U.S. war mongering". It wreaks of a huge lack of information and blind anti-U.S. bias.
Besides, Canadians have as much of a stake in the political stability of any region. If the Canadian government has not been involved, which I doubt, it speaks to a great irresponsibility. Don't sit on the sidelines and cry about what others do to affect you if you sat there and let that happen. Anyone and any country should know immediately these days that with the reach terrorists have you either get involved or become a sitting duck.
If anyone defines "stability" as a murderous dictator terrorizing an entire region into submission that person is blissfully unaware that dictatorship is a hugely destabilizing force under a false veneer of control. Hundreds of historical examples prove that. Is it really necessary to cite any of them? Dictators are never satisfied without expansion, as with Saddam's Gulf War invading Iran in 1980, and the oppressed are continuously plotting to destroy the system from within, see Shias, Sunnis, Kurds: gassing and murder of. That's about as far from stable as you can get. If it wasn't Isis it would be some other evolved force. It's only a matter of time.
I had not noticed where this thread was going and I was not up on the details of the situation. Actually, I'm shocked at the reference to me. Joking I guess.
You've over-reached a bit in your statement, especially considering the very recent air strikes alone. A relative of mine was sitting in his tank dealing with the Syrians in 2003. Military involvement is not only about large waves of invading troops. Money, intelligence exchanges, quick strategic strikes, training operatives and troops to go in, choking trade, seizing funds, sending arms, etc, these are all forms of aggression very close to and often part of military involvement. Yes, the U.S. has definitely been militarily involved in Syria for some time. Not the least of which would be all the support Israel has received in the long past to help against a Syrian threat. It would have been a serious neglect, maybe betrayal, not to be involved. American arms, American intelligence systems, American air power, American naval ships, tons of American money,...that's a lot of direct military involvement.
Specifically about the attack on the Canadian Parliament buildings, I think people are extremely angry and taking out very old grievances and applying them here where they don't belong. Some are blaming the U.S., or pointing fingers in numerous directions. If the political leaders were all still the same and in their positions as they were before the first large scale American troop involvement in the Middle East from 1990-1991 I doubt the general current situation would be different now. The disruptive forces would still be potent based on very old social, political, ethnic and religious feuds. Before 1990 the Middle East was still a huge mess from the effects of foreign control of indigenous people over thousands of years. The battle between religious fanatics and the fanaticism involved has been just as intense since Muhammad founded the religion. The use of terrorism is also thousands of years old, only the methods and reach have changed, and now with the internet the extremists can bring in fanatical recruits from anywhere in the world. Just the other day three American women were detained and deported back to the U.S. from Germany after being discovered trying to join Isis in Syria.
At least one of the guys involved in the Canadian attacks had already been involved in criminal activities in Canada before converting to Islam, so he seems like no more than a predisposed malcontented wannabe looking for a bad cause or possibly some phoney anti-social justification like the American who beheaded a woman in Oklahoma City. The new age terrorists are reaching into the psyches of people worldwide...BECAUSE THEY CAN...and they would be doing it for many old geopolitical reasons as well as their reasons just to satisfy their own bloody damn satisfaction and egos regardless of anything else or whatever others have done. I think one of the simple truth is Islam is convulsing over a clash of religious doctrine and modern concepts of individual worth and rights...ie...freedoms, and the regional politics are a convenient motivational opportunity to exploit.
If you are trying to blame Americans or anyone else for what nuts like this are doing you are exploiting an ugly episode with your biases and old agendas very disingenuously into this situation. There's nothing new about this as other countries have had the same tragic experiences, some with practically no U.S. political connection. Frankly, I think any idea that this would never have happened in Canada if it wasn't for what other countries are doing or have done is arrogant and ridiculous.
Canada is a wonderful country, but to imply that it would be safe from harm if not for world issues caused by others speaks to a nonsensical bubble mentality. Canada and Canadians are not going to be immune from tragedy by staying out of the world's problems, which they haven't anyway. Wake up to it, get over it, deal with it.
I'm not sure how anyone can say this except in the narrowest official terms. Intelligence/information is THE most critical factor, especially in war. Considering the enormous impact of CIA-based information to help guide Presidents in politics and war (heavy Vietnam involvement), and the consequences of not having it (Korean War) it's military function use is beyond doubt.
Good luck,
Merlot
This really is a ridiculous statement. The causes for extremism related to Islam possibly involved in the current situation go back at least to the break up of the Ottoman Empire, and much further. Far more recently there's a lot more involvement by other countries way beyond this very narrow short-sighted excuse labeled as "U.S. war mongering". It wreaks of a huge lack of information and blind anti-U.S. bias.
Besides, Canadians have as much of a stake in the political stability of any region. If the Canadian government has not been involved, which I doubt, it speaks to a great irresponsibility. Don't sit on the sidelines and cry about what others do to affect you if you sat there and let that happen. Anyone and any country should know immediately these days that with the reach terrorists have you either get involved or become a sitting duck.
If anyone defines "stability" as a murderous dictator terrorizing an entire region into submission that person is blissfully unaware that dictatorship is a hugely destabilizing force under a false veneer of control. Hundreds of historical examples prove that. Is it really necessary to cite any of them? Dictators are never satisfied without expansion, as with Saddam's Gulf War invading Iran in 1980, and the oppressed are continuously plotting to destroy the system from within, see Shias, Sunnis, Kurds: gassing and murder of. That's about as far from stable as you can get. If it wasn't Isis it would be some other evolved force. It's only a matter of time.
I had not noticed where this thread was going and I was not up on the details of the situation. Actually, I'm shocked at the reference to me. Joking I guess.
You've over-reached a bit in your statement, especially considering the very recent air strikes alone. A relative of mine was sitting in his tank dealing with the Syrians in 2003. Military involvement is not only about large waves of invading troops. Money, intelligence exchanges, quick strategic strikes, training operatives and troops to go in, choking trade, seizing funds, sending arms, etc, these are all forms of aggression very close to and often part of military involvement. Yes, the U.S. has definitely been militarily involved in Syria for some time. Not the least of which would be all the support Israel has received in the long past to help against a Syrian threat. It would have been a serious neglect, maybe betrayal, not to be involved. American arms, American intelligence systems, American air power, American naval ships, tons of American money,...that's a lot of direct military involvement.
Specifically about the attack on the Canadian Parliament buildings, I think people are extremely angry and taking out very old grievances and applying them here where they don't belong. Some are blaming the U.S., or pointing fingers in numerous directions. If the political leaders were all still the same and in their positions as they were before the first large scale American troop involvement in the Middle East from 1990-1991 I doubt the general current situation would be different now. The disruptive forces would still be potent based on very old social, political, ethnic and religious feuds. Before 1990 the Middle East was still a huge mess from the effects of foreign control of indigenous people over thousands of years. The battle between religious fanatics and the fanaticism involved has been just as intense since Muhammad founded the religion. The use of terrorism is also thousands of years old, only the methods and reach have changed, and now with the internet the extremists can bring in fanatical recruits from anywhere in the world. Just the other day three American women were detained and deported back to the U.S. from Germany after being discovered trying to join Isis in Syria.
At least one of the guys involved in the Canadian attacks had already been involved in criminal activities in Canada before converting to Islam, so he seems like no more than a predisposed malcontented wannabe looking for a bad cause or possibly some phoney anti-social justification like the American who beheaded a woman in Oklahoma City. The new age terrorists are reaching into the psyches of people worldwide...BECAUSE THEY CAN...and they would be doing it for many old geopolitical reasons as well as their reasons just to satisfy their own bloody damn satisfaction and egos regardless of anything else or whatever others have done. I think one of the simple truth is Islam is convulsing over a clash of religious doctrine and modern concepts of individual worth and rights...ie...freedoms, and the regional politics are a convenient motivational opportunity to exploit.
If you are trying to blame Americans or anyone else for what nuts like this are doing you are exploiting an ugly episode with your biases and old agendas very disingenuously into this situation. There's nothing new about this as other countries have had the same tragic experiences, some with practically no U.S. political connection. Frankly, I think any idea that this would never have happened in Canada if it wasn't for what other countries are doing or have done is arrogant and ridiculous.
Canada is a wonderful country, but to imply that it would be safe from harm if not for world issues caused by others speaks to a nonsensical bubble mentality. Canada and Canadians are not going to be immune from tragedy by staying out of the world's problems, which they haven't anyway. Wake up to it, get over it, deal with it.
I'm not sure how anyone can say this except in the narrowest official terms. Intelligence/information is THE most critical factor, especially in war. Considering the enormous impact of CIA-based information to help guide Presidents in politics and war (heavy Vietnam involvement), and the consequences of not having it (Korean War) it's military function use is beyond doubt.
Good luck,
Merlot
1) If you read my post, I was referring to US assistance to those seeking to overthrow the Syrian government, not the air strike. I doubt that the Syrian government would ever acquiesce to any kind of aid to those rebels.
2) The CIA participates in covert military operations and, in this case, provided military assistance. No, the CIA are not officially part of the military. Do you think that the Syrians appreciate the distinction if it is the Navy Seals or the CIA which intervenes militarily?
The US supported dictators for years - Saddam in Iraq as well as the Shah in Iran, Mubarek in Egypt, the Saudis in Saudi Arabia .......
What a sad joke the Americans keep repeating about fighting for freedom. They might still, but only if it coincides with their perceived geopolitical interests.
Similar threads
