02.03.2015 03:13 PM

On the day a young Jordanian is burned alive, on the day there are more jihadi arrests in Ottawa…

We wonder:


  1. Peter says:

    The Libs might have done something differently, but not the Dippers. They are simply too beholden to their anti-Western, neo-colonial “it’s all our fault” narrative. Asking them to go against that is like asking them to acknowledge the advantages of the free market. They’ll stick to it to the last seat and, when that goes, they’ll congratulate one another on being so smart and principled and muse about the downsides of democracy.

  2. Lance says:

    Whether one agrees with them or not, it is easy to see what one particular party would decide (and has) and where precisely and unequivocally they stand on this issue, when the other two just can’t seem to find their footing and put it out there in stark terms.

    The Liberals and the NDP are tone deaf. If anyone in the back field thinks that the Tories aren’t running wildly away with this issue (with the added bonus of lucky timing of an upcoming election campaign) then they are doing so at their own electoral peril.

    • smelter rat says:

      Yes, they’re incredibly lucky that ISIL is murdering people. It’s always handy to have a corpse to stand on during an election campaign.

  3. Tiger says:

    There are a bunch of people on the political left who are anti-intervention, period.

    You can call this principled, you can call this mule-headed, but it is what it is. Both the Liberals and the NDP have to deal with it, as it’s a portion of their voter base, especially on university campuses.

    Naturally the Conservatives will smile, as they’ve got about 60-65% of the electorate on their side on the issue.

  4. James Smith says:

    Sorry to keep posting this but I think both Mr T & Mr C are correct on this issue. ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/jean-chretien-defends-trudeaus-opposition-of-iraq-combat-mission/article21134448/ )

    An excerpt if I may ” The former prime minister says Canada should instead contribute $100-million to the World Food Program to feed refugees displaced by the extremist jihadists.”

  5. davie says:

    For me one hypocrisy is in declaring global jihad a threat to civilization, telling us that Islamic State is that threat incarnate, and then sending only 6 war planes and under 1 000 personnel. As they say, either shoot, or get off the pot.

    There are over 60 nation states contributing to this coalition, and I cannot understand why Islamic State can be holding up the way that it does. (I notice Russia is not in the coalition. Seems to me Putin was one of the first foreign leaders that ISIS threatened.)
    I also cannot understand the mentality of a group that keeps posting videos designed to inflame the passions of the citizenry in the states that are in the coalition; they have to know that those citizens are more likely to okay their government’s deployments to Iraq.

  6. Ty says:

    I’d say no, because given the scenarios their respective leaders would probably quit their jobs and short oil securities.

  7. Lance says:

    LOL sorry WK, last one for today –

    Polls suggest that Quebec is so far mostly on side with the Harper government’s decision to take on a military role in the coalition against Islamic State extremists in Iraq.

    It is hard to think of a single Conservative initiative that has had majority support in Quebec since the beginning of this mandate. It is harder still to find the last time the province was on side with a Canadian military endeavour that was not devoted to peacekeeping.

    The Quebec shifting sands on the security issue have the NDP and the Liberals struggling to keep their footing in a province central to their election calculations and Conservative strategists thinking they may have an unexpected shot at expanding their party’s footprint in Quebec next fall.


    The piece of the pie keeps getting smaller over there in LPC/NDP land.

    Denis Coderre supporting a Conservative federal security bill; whoever would have thought?

  8. Domenico says:

    I for one do not see the moral high ground in supporting Israel, yet helping Hezbollah fight another terrorist group (ISIS). Or helping the Shia’s fight the Sunni’s. Or helping Saudi Arabia fight Bashir Al Assad. Or however you want to try to frame this. This current five sided war is a direct result of the invasion of Iraq that Jean Chretien very wisely did not involve us in. I doubt he has changed his mind.

  9. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    Wars almost always begin the same way with a relatively high level of popular support. But as the inevitable number of casualities escalates, the bottom of support falls out and the level of unpopularity takes hold.

    The Americans will tell you they have decimated Al-Qaeda but I don’t believe that for a second. They have disrupted attacks and foiled plots but Al-Qaeda still has the ability to strike hard. Security agencies have to get it right 100% of the time. Terrorists, only once.

    We had the ability and did defeat Nazi Germany. Terrorism will never ever be defeated.

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      The core position that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan was unconditional surrender, full stop, end of story. No negotiations, no compromise, no holds barred.

      Two ideologically driven enemies crushed without hesitation until there was nothing left to fight with, nor the will to fight one more day.

      Two nations whom have since gone on to become economic powers, becoming some of the most democratic and socially responsible societies in the world.

      And close allies to the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

      Somewhere in all that history there are lessons to be revisited.

      • patrick says:

        Yes, nations have surrendered unconditionally to end war. Very good. Could you please explain what nation we are fighting? Who the leader is? The exact boundary of the country we are at war with? What foreign minister various foreign ministers should call if it’s decided there can be a negotiated settlement? Please alert various intelligence agencies with your information because they seem to be at a loss. You can’t, because there isn’t. See, if you are going to revisit history you should at least understand the context you are trying to explain. You need to understand the difference between a conventional war and a battle against a tactic? Also understand that all the west has accomplished since 9/11 is create a pool of disaffected lost people willing to die because they have nothing else but some pathetic religious fantasy exploited by power hungry people. All of this created by other fantasists and war mongers using their war methodology as you so desperately want. All that has been created is endless death and suffering, which is the goal of jihadist/end of days/lunatics all along. Congratulations. You are one of them.

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          In the beginning, lots of people outside of Germany, particularly in Britain and the US, thought Hitler was a swell guy going in the right direction. Lots of middle easterners, and others elsewhere, think Al Quida and ISIS are on the right track, too.

          Over time, and under extreme pressure, both Germany and Japan overplayed their hands (currently reading “The Burma Road”, in which we learn again that a great many throughout the Pacific theater regarded Japan as a liberator, only to quickly learn the truth and reality of their merciless barbarity. Many Europeans regarded Germany in the same vein, until it was their turn to face the truth of Nazi barbarism.)

          There nevertheless are still those few, even this very day, who think Nazism was a good thing. No ideology or idea, no matter how vile, is ever completely wiped out.

          The enemy then, as it is now, is motivated by ideology. Indeed, they always are.

          What we made clear then, and need to be crystal clear about now, is to show them the absolute futility of their ways, and that they WILL lose everything in the end.

    • GFMD says:

      In the short and long term, all our interventions in hte middle east have had tragic outcomes. If the current mission sours by October, it won’t look good for the CPC. But their numbers go up if there are terrorist attacks here in Canada.

      So the rule of thumb for the CPC – successful ISIS in Canada good, successful ISIS in Mid-East bad. Bombs here they win, bombs there they lose.

  10. Kev says:

    Let’s recap the RCMP actions:

    – one revealed their “catch and release” policy.

    – they have issued a warrant for someone who is dead.

    If it looks and smells like bullshit, it’s bullshit.

  11. wsam says:

    The only sure way ISIL will be defeated is for the Sunni Arabs who live in its territory to turn against it. This will most likely happen. Probably sooner rather than later. ISIL does not seem keen on recruiting neighbouring states like Jordan into allies.

    Obama was correct to attempt and keep Western intervention against ISIL low-key. The Republicans, CNN and FOX forced him into making the same mistake with ISIL as was earlier made against Bin Laden, making him/ them seem more powerful than they in fact are. We shouldn’t be applauding ourselves for helping compound this error.

    Regardless with what happens to ISIL, Syria will still be in chaos. With ISIL gone al Qaeda will be dominant among jihadist groups. Turkey will probably pour more resources into it in order to fight Assad

    The Sunnis in Iraq’s old Anabar province will remain estranged from the Shia in Bagdad and the Kurds to the North (and ready to erupt once again in rebellion).

    Turkey will still be seeking to undermine the Kurds and vice-versa. As soon as the threat of ISIL recedes the different Kurdish faction will turn against each other.

    All this, plus the on-going contest for regional supremacy between Iran and Saudi Arabia will continue to fuel all the aforementioned conflicts and several I neglected to mention.

    It is a real shit sandwich that we have tricked ourselves into taking a bite of. This is why Obama wanted to keep it low-key. Trudeau and Muclair should start talking about the wider region and how Canada should prepare for the new and different chaos of a post-ISIL middle east.

Leave a Reply to Peter Cancel reply
