No thread for Canada yet?

[GoranZ]

This is the war Canada chose to fight. The only inquiry should be why the Harper regime did not adequately prepare Ottawa's defenses from a land invasion. Canada has a fleet of submarines that can't go underwater, a navy that gets towed into battle by American tugboats, and an air force flying antiques. It seems like it bit off more than it can chew.

No wonder they are afraid of Russia but are attacked by Islamic Militants

P.S. The fear of Russia is unjustified but the one that will manage to explain that to them will get Nobel price

[saxitoxin]

This is the war Canada chose to fight. The only inquiry should be why the Harper regime did not adequately prepare Ottawa's defenses from a land invasion. Canada has a fleet of submarines that can't go underwater, a navy that gets towed into battle by American tugboats, and an air force flying antiques. It seems like it bit off more than it can chew.

No wonder they are afraid of Russia but are attacked by Islamic Militants

They're also afraid of Russia because their first line of defense against an over-the-pole attack are soldiers who get 10 days of training and are armed with WW2-surplus rifles. With that state of affairs, they should probably be concerned about Mongolia, too.

[GoranZ]

This is the war Canada chose to fight. The only inquiry should be why the Harper regime did not adequately prepare Ottawa's defenses from a land invasion. Canada has a fleet of submarines that can't go underwater, a navy that gets towed into battle by American tugboats, and an air force flying antiques. It seems like it bit off more than it can chew.

No wonder they are afraid of Russia but are attacked by Islamic Militants

They're also afraid of Russia because their first line of defense against an over-the-pole attack are soldiers who get 10 days of training and are armed with WW2-surplus rifles. With that state of affairs, they should probably be concerned about Mongolia, too.

There is one big drawback to all that... Imagine a Russian soldier knocks on DoomYoshi's door and DoomYoshi pissed in his pants opens it. That would be one big awkward situation, and the Russian soldier will be quite disappointed about not being able to fight real men.
I dont think that Putin will send his men on such depressing mission

[notyou2]

Usually self proclaimed democratic governments like Canadian one fails to ensure the safety of its democratic citizens... same applied to US, UK, Norway and many other.
Democratic society doesn't have mechanisms to protect its democratic citizens... and it seems it will never have. Since there is no clear line what do do with people/organizations that dont behave according to the democratic principles... For me the solution is simple, judge them by the principles they behave upon although that might not be democratic punishment.

If we try to protect ourselves and live in a bubble, then the terrorists have won.

Where did I mention hiding, running or living in a bubble?

You never said "running,hiding or living in a bubble" that I can see, not sure why you said them now.

Terrorist win if they are not afraid, and I dont see that ISIS, Al Qaeda or any other radical Muslim being afraid. How to make them afraid is another matter.

We will live our lives naturally and normally and in a free democratic system and we will persevere. They can't kill all of us.

Sure they cant kill all those that want free democratic system now but they might become able to take out enough in 5 to 10 years from now. Currently Islamic extremists attack with normal bombs but in the future they might use chemical weapons or even worse biological one. The question is how will democratically oriented countries effectively protect them selves from their own undemocratically oriented citizens.

They already are using chemical bombs in Syria. They used artillery shells with chlorine in them in September.

Our democratic citizens fight extremists within our midst. We have twice this week and killed both of them. Are you having trouble with English?

[GoranZ]

Usually self proclaimed democratic governments like Canadian one fails to ensure the safety of its democratic citizens... same applied to US, UK, Norway and many other.
Democratic society doesn't have mechanisms to protect its democratic citizens... and it seems it will never have. Since there is no clear line what do do with people/organizations that dont behave according to the democratic principles... For me the solution is simple, judge them by the principles they behave upon although that might not be democratic punishment.

If we try to protect ourselves and live in a bubble, then the terrorists have won.

Where did I mention hiding, running or living in a bubble?

You never said "running,hiding or living in a bubble" that I can see, not sure why you said them now.

Terrorist win if they are not afraid, and I dont see that ISIS, Al Qaeda or any other radical Muslim being afraid. How to make them afraid is another matter.

We will live our lives naturally and normally and in a free democratic system and we will persevere. They can't kill all of us.

Sure they cant kill all those that want free democratic system now but they might become able to take out enough in 5 to 10 years from now. Currently Islamic extremists attack with normal bombs but in the future they might use chemical weapons or even worse biological one. The question is how will democratically oriented countries effectively protect them selves from their own undemocratically oriented citizens.

They already are using chemical bombs in Syria. They used artillery shells with chlorine in them in September.

That I know, so they have acquired some technology for chemical warfare... presumably that will advance over time.

Our democratic citizens fight extremists within our midst. We have twice this week and killed both of them. Are you having trouble with English?

The question is how to stop those attacks happening in the first place not to kill the attackers after they start their attack. On top of everything Canada lost good man in those attacks.
Was it discovered who recruited the attackers? He should be targeted, his family, his community(close the mosque if needed)... that's the root of the problem, not the attacker. If he is targeted(expelled from Canada, imprisoned for 20-30 years), it will give a serious message to other like him that Canada is not kidding when it comes to domestic terrorism, otherwise you guys are wasting your time.

[notyou2]

Like I said before, as far as I know, only one was recruited and radicalized and that was the guy that ran down 2 soldiers with his car. One soldier died. The cops chased him, he crashed his car and came at the cops with a knife. They shot and killed him. He was of French Canadian descent.

The guy in Ottawa, was born in Canada, but I believe of Libyan descent. I understand he was not radicalized but had mental issues. He did apply for a passport and I think it was rejected, so he attacked Parliament.

You can't protect from these crazies, you just have to deal with them as they come up.

I believe the recruiters are mostly working through the internet from other countries.

[DoomYoshi]

The question is how to stop those attacks happening in the first place not to kill the attackers after they start their attack.

Great, on top of being an anti-American, you use the same dumb reasoning that W. used. It's like saying: I hate McDonalds... I mean, I love how if they drop a burger on the floor, you still get to eat it, but I hate how they all accept credit card.

[GoranZ]

The question is how to stop those attacks happening in the first place not to kill the attackers after they start their attack.

Great, on top of being an anti-American, you use the same dumb reasoning that W. used. It's like saying: I hate McDonalds... I mean, I love how if they drop a burger on the floor, you still get to eat it, but I hate how they all accept credit card.

I'm not anti-American... I just dont like American government(which is different), and temporary since governments change quite frequently. On the other hand you are anti-Russian(both government and people) which is serous problem.
But there is one very interesting question... If armed Islamic Terrorist or Russian Soldier knock on your door, from which you will pee more?

[notyou2]

The question is how to stop those attacks happening in the first place not to kill the attackers after they start their attack.

Great, on top of being an anti-American, you use the same dumb reasoning that W. used. It's like saying: I hate McDonalds... I mean, I love how if they drop a burger on the floor, you still get to eat it, but I hate how they all accept credit card.

I'm not anti-American... I just dont like American government(which is different), and temporary since governments change quite frequently. On the other hand you are anti-Russian(both government and people) which is serous problem.
But there is one very interesting question... If armed Islamic Terrorist or Russian Soldier knock on your door, from which you will pee more?

Why are you hiding in Macedonia?

[GoranZ]

Why are you hiding in Macedonia?

Born in Macedonia almost like all my ancestors(except for my Croatian grandma)... How did you concluded that I hide?

[notyou2]

Why are you hiding in Macedonia?

Born in Macedonia almost like all my ancestors(except for my Croatian grandma)... How did you concluded that I hide?

You seem to love Russia.

[GoranZ]

Why are you hiding in Macedonia?

Born in Macedonia almost like all my ancestors(except for my Croatian grandma)... How did you concluded that I hide?

You seem to love Russia.

hmm If I dont agree with what west(especially EU) is doing doesn't mean that I love Russia but that's mainly westerners problem. For you if someone is not with you he is automatically against you. You guys must like to create extra enemies, I guess that big fat military industry needs place to use those produced weapons.
But how all that makes me hiding?

[tzor]

I'm interested to hear more specifics of exactly what he was wearing. If he was attired in a uniform of some type, even a makeshift one, had declared his allegiance to a de facto foreign state which Canada is currently attacking, and confined his attacks to Canadian army targets, on what basis is he being described as a terrorist instead of a soldier engaged in a military operation?

Are you suggesting that IS(IDGASWTC) has formally "invaded" Canada with a military expedition of one? Because, if this is the case, Canada, being a country just invaded has the right to bomb that region into the stone age. (Too bad using nukes is still considered poor form.)

Merely wearing a uniform does not switch a person from unlawful combatant to lawful one. One must be an actual member of the armed forces of the party to the conflict, and I don't think he was a proper member of IS military. Especially since there is no formal declaration of war between IS and Canada.

[saxitoxin]

I'm interested to hear more specifics of exactly what he was wearing. If he was attired in a uniform of some type, even a makeshift one, had declared his allegiance to a de facto foreign state which Canada is currently attacking, and confined his attacks to Canadian army targets, on what basis is he being described as a terrorist instead of a soldier engaged in a military operation?

Are you suggesting that IS(IDGASWTC) has formally "invaded" Canada with a military expedition of one? Because, if this is the case, Canada, being a country just invaded has the right to bomb that region

you got the attack/counter-attack thing right, just not in the correct order

Oct 8: the Canadian parliament has approved sending up to six CF-18 fighter aircraft to participate in airstrikes in Iraq against IS
Oct 22: IS commando strike on Canadian military targets and regime leadership compound (Centre Block)

into the stone age

considering the dilapidated state of the RCAF, the most Canada can shoot for is bombing Iraq into the Age of Disco

Merely wearing a uniform does not switch a person from unlawful combatant to lawful one. One must be an actual member of the armed forces of the party to the conflict, and I don't think he was a proper member of IS military. Especially since there is no formal declaration of war between IS and Canada.

No, that's incorrect. By this logic, Canadian soldiers are themselves unlawful combatants since IS hasn't declared war on Canada either.

You seem to be under the misperception that there is a special custom by which war occurs under conditions and at times and places determined by the English-speaking belligerent. When a nation makes a choice to war (declared or not), as Canada has done, it is customary it will be subject to violent and relentless attacks against its territory until it either prevails, surrenders, or is wiped out of existence. The west is so accustomed to safely* warring on foreign territory it has forgotten this fact.

The current state of the CF leaves Canada in no position to face this reality. Those six decrepit old CF-18s Canada is sending to Iraq won't make a lick of difference to the USAF; they're a political prop, not some useful contribution. And the Canadian government just learned that token contributions for the sake of a few right-wing votes don't come without risk. Harper needs to decide what's more important to him - winning a by-election in Buttfuck, Manitoba, or making sure the Governor-General keeps his head attached to his torso.

* edit - except for the ones doing the fighting

[Phatscotty]

The question is how to stop those attacks happening in the first place not to kill the attackers after they start their attack.

Great, on top of being an anti-American, you use the same dumb reasoning that W. used. It's like saying: I hate McDonalds... I mean, I love how if they drop a burger on the floor, you still get to eat it, but I hate how they all accept credit card.

lulz, but I think some of that is from the way Gogo speaks his English

[BigBallinStalin]

Really? 1 soldier died?

This is not a big deal. This is even less of a problem than the number of other homicides which occur in Canada on an annual basis. Obviously, the body count is not the hyped up issued here.

But is anyone surprised that this is hyped up? ISIS was mentioned! Terrorism was mentioned! OH NOEZ!!

Get a grip. This is such a minor incident that it should be ignored. The goal of terrorism is to gain notoriety. The media--along with the cognitive biases of its many viewers--supply the means which terrorists seek: i.e. notoriety. They want to be recognized as a threat, which they really aren't--compared to the bigger and more probably threats in the world--e.g. dying in a car wreck on your way to work or slipping in your shower and cracking your head on the bathtub.

The reaction in this thread is so overblown and immature. Such an overreaction is mainly why violent organizations pursue terrorism. It gets a rise out of people.

Just stop it. It's so dumb and immature. Also, stop overreacting to the bullshit claims by your government. They seek a public authorization to do nonsensical things abroad, so it's lose-lose for the 'over-reactors' here.

[notyou2]

I'm interested to hear more specifics of exactly what he was wearing. If he was attired in a uniform of some type, even a makeshift one, had declared his allegiance to a de facto foreign state which Canada is currently attacking, and confined his attacks to Canadian army targets, on what basis is he being described as a terrorist instead of a soldier engaged in a military operation?

Are you suggesting that IS(IDGASWTC) has formally "invaded" Canada with a military expedition of one? Because, if this is the case, Canada, being a country just invaded has the right to bomb that region

you got the attack/counter-attack thing right, just not in the correct order

Oct 8: the Canadian parliament has approved sending up to six CF-18 fighter aircraft to participate in airstrikes in Iraq against IS
Oct 22: IS commando strike on Canadian military targets and regime leadership compound (Centre Block)

into the stone age

considering the dilapidated state of the RCAF, the most Canada can shoot for is bombing Iraq into the Age of Disco

Merely wearing a uniform does not switch a person from unlawful combatant to lawful one. One must be an actual member of the armed forces of the party to the conflict, and I don't think he was a proper member of IS military. Especially since there is no formal declaration of war between IS and Canada.

No, that's incorrect. By this logic, Canadian soldiers are themselves unlawful combatants since IS hasn't declared war on Canada either.

You seem to be under the misperception that there is a special custom by which war occurs under conditions and at times and places determined by the English-speaking belligerent. When a nation makes a choice to war (declared or not), as Canada has done, it is customary it will be subject to violent and relentless attacks against its territory until it either prevails, surrenders, or is wiped out of existence. The west is so accustomed to safely* warring on foreign territory it has forgotten this fact.

The current state of the CF leaves Canada in no position to face this reality. Those six decrepit old CF-18s Canada is sending to Iraq won't make a lick of difference to the USAF; they're a political prop, not some useful contribution. And the Canadian government just learned that token contributions for the sake of a few right-wing votes don't come without risk. Harper needs to decide what's more important to him - winning a by-election in Buttfuck, Manitoba, or making sure the Governor-General keeps his head attached to his torso.

* edit - except for the ones doing the fighting

The Parliament shooter has not been confirmed to be a member of ISIS Saxi, unless you know something no one else seems to know.

[tzor]

into the stone age

considering the dilapidated state of the RCAF, the most Canada can shoot for is bombing Iraq into the Age of Disco

I spent my high school years in the Age of Disco. I'm pretty sure that forcing any nation to the "Age of Disco" would be considered a "War Crime."

Mind you, the thought of ISIS members, waving their flags and singing "Disco Duck" might be ... never mind.