• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Canadian soldiers clash with ISIL in Iraq

US Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Canadian forces exchange gunfire with ISIL fighters in Iraq in first confirmed ground battle involving western forces.


Canadian special forces have clashed with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group by exchanging gunfire in Iraq in recent days, in the first confirmed ground battle between western troops and ISIL, a senior officer has said. The Canadians came under mortar and machine gun fire while training Iraqi troops near the front lines and shot back in what Canadian special forces commander, Brigadier General Michael Rouleau, described as self-defence, killing the ISIL fighters.

Rouleau said the melee had taken place in the previous seven days and was "the first time we've taken fire and returned fire" in Iraq, where the armed group has overrun large areas.

Cont... Canadian soldiers clash with ISIL in Iraq - Al Jazeera English
The conflict with ISIS continues to escalate, kudo's to the Canadians special forces snipers. Luckily no casualties on the friendly side. :cool:

Still when I read about these things I can't help but be angry that Obama ceded Iraq to ISIS, and now we must go back in to kill them.
He put his personal political gain above the lives of Iraqi's and the coalition forces.

Heres a vid of Canadian spec ops forces.
 
The left here in Canada are no less apologists for ISIS and Muslim extremism. The leading Liberal in Canada believes our only role should be to airdrop blankets and food to the innocent people driven from their homes and lives by savages. They believe the above noted interaction between Canadian forces and ISIS scum is a scandal against our Conservative Prime Minister and his government rather than an example of the fine, brave young men and women who serve in our forces. Disgusting.
 
The left here in Canada are no less apologists for ISIS and Muslim extremism. The leading Liberal in Canada believes our only role should be to airdrop blankets and food to the innocent people driven from their homes and lives by savages. They believe the above noted interaction between Canadian forces and ISIS scum is a scandal against our Conservative Prime Minister and his government rather than an example of the fine, brave young men and women who serve in our forces. Disgusting.

That is, they are pacifists.
 
The left here in Canada are no less apologists for ISIS and Muslim extremism. The leading Liberal in Canada believes our only role should be to airdrop blankets and food to the innocent people driven from their homes and lives by savages. They believe the above noted interaction between Canadian forces and ISIS scum is a scandal against our Conservative Prime Minister and his government rather than an example of the fine, brave young men and women who serve in our forces. Disgusting.

What is it about the left that paralyzes them in the face of evil? I hope Canadians are practical and wise enough to see they were justified in taking a stand.
 
What is it about the left that paralyzes them in the face of evil? I hope Canadians are practical and wise enough to see they were justified in taking a stand.

Most Canadians are - a high percentage of Canadians approve of our governments interventions and assistance in Iraq to combat the movement of ISIS and the standing of the Liberal Party's leader has been steadily eroding over the past few months as Canadians see that in the times we live in his ideas are dangerous not only to those directly suffering but to us here in Canada as well.
 
Most Canadians are - a high percentage of Canadians approve of our governments interventions and assistance in Iraq to combat the movement of ISIS and the standing of the Liberal Party's leader has been steadily eroding over the past few months as Canadians see that in the times we live in his ideas are dangerous not only to those directly suffering but to us here in Canada as well.

I believe Canada has a good size Muslim population, how has that affected attitudes?
 
I believe Canada has a good size Muslim population, how has that affected attitudes?

It's why the leader of the Liberal Party has been pandering to Muslims and trivializing the connections between extremists and the religion. But there are many very strong voices here in the Muslim communities and in our mainstream media who have called out extremism and warned against ignoring or excusing it. We have many Ahmadis Muslims, driven out of Pakistan because they weren't extreme or fundamentalist enough and these are moderate voices strongly opposed to violence against others and things like Sharia Law have been rejected here as opposed to being accepted in many parts of Europe.

Most Canadians are accepting of all peoples of the world and welcome them to our country but we despise those who bring their wars and their petty grievances with them. Extremist Muslims are bringing those wars and petty grievances inside Canadian borders and we don't want that to continue and grow so the best place to fight it is where it is rooted, and that's in the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
It's why the leader of the Liberal Party has been pandering to Muslims and trivializing the connections between extremists and the religion. But there are many very strong voices here in the Muslim communities and in our mainstream media who have called out extremism and warned against ignoring or excusing it. We have many Ahmadis Muslims, driven out of Pakistan because they weren't extreme or fundamentalist enough and these are moderate voices strongly opposed to violence against others and things like Sharia Law have been rejected here as opposed to being accepted in many parts of Europe.

Most Canadians are accepting of all peoples of the world and welcome them to our country but we despise those who bring their wars and their petty grievances with them. Extremist Muslims are bringing those wars and petty grievances inside Canadian borders and we don't want that to continue and grow so the best place to fight it is where it is rooted, and that's in the Middle East.

Democrats would disagree with you.
 
As the mountain will not come to Muhammad, we went to the mountain.

Bush decided it was better to fight them in the sandbox than on US soil.
 
...the best place to fight it is where it is rooted, and that's in the Middle East.

Because fighting them there for, give or take, a decade and a half has led to fewer, and less violent/aggressive/expansionist/whatever Extremist Muslims?

Just curious at what point we should sit down and think about this and NOT continue doing the same exact things that have been pretty much 100% ineffective...
 
I guess I misunderstood how you were using it.

Muhammed asked the mountain to come to him, the mountain did not, so Mohammed went to to the mountain.
If someone does not come to you, go to them.
I support Troops training Iraqi's-Kurds, they came under fire, and they defended themselves. Otherwise it is an Iraqi problem brought upon Iraq by Iraqi corruption, division and hate.
They have to solve that, to solve future issues.
 
We've basically secured a war that will last the duration of our empire. The more extremeists we kill, the brothers, sisters, friends will take arms in the hate against the west. So it will continue on. I guess certain interests in the corpocracy would actually like a continual "war on terror."
 
Because fighting them there for, give or take, a decade and a half has led to fewer, and less violent/aggressive/expansionist/whatever Extremist Muslims?

Just curious at what point we should sit down and think about this and NOT continue doing the same exact things that have been pretty much 100% ineffective...

The alternative to fighting them there is to cede the entire territory to savages and abandon the millions of good people who are our friends with the potential for a massive refugee situation flooding into other areas of the globe.

Sometimes there are no good or optimal choices, there are just best of a bad lot choices.
 
The alternative to fighting them there is to cede the entire territory to savages and abandon the millions of good people who are our friends with the potential for a massive refugee situation flooding into other areas of the globe.

Sometimes there are no good or optimal choices, there are just best of a bad lot choices.

I would argue that the actual "war" (such as it is) is between Islam and radical Islam and that any fallout in the West is strictly collateral damage.

I think what's necessary, as Abdel el-Sisi, said recently, is a "religious revolution" within the Islamic faith.

I think we need to stop pretending that we have any influence at all over radical Islam (or Islam more generally) on the street and we need to start looking for was to foment the kind of revolution that el-Sisi was talking about at the leadership level.

I think that that would take us a good deal further toward ultimately being able to live "with" Islam than this never ending game of wack-a-mole we're playing with extremists.

I'm not averse to killing folks when it's practical and will arguably further out ultimate objective, but it's clear that "defense" has to take a back seat to "diplomacy" on this issue if we're ever going to get anywhere.

Unfortunately there isn't a multi-billion-dollar diplomacy lobby stirring the pot in Washington and politicians are able to deliver their constituencies a great deal more "pork" in an effort to make armored vehicles and bombs than they can bringing orders for pencils and paper back to their districts.
 
I would argue that the actual "war" (such as it is) is between Islam and radical Islam and that any fallout in the West is strictly collateral damage.

I think what's necessary, as Abdel el-Sisi, said recently, is a "religious revolution" within the Islamic faith.

I think we need to stop pretending that we have any influence at all over radical Islam (or Islam more generally) on the street and we need to start looking for was to foment the kind of revolution that el-Sisi was talking about at the leadership level.

I think that that would take us a good deal further toward ultimately being able to live "with" Islam than this never ending game of wack-a-mole we're playing with extremists.

I'm not averse to killing folks when it's practical and will arguably further out ultimate objective, but it's clear that "defense" has to take a back seat to "diplomacy" on this issue if we're ever going to get anywhere.

Unfortunately there isn't a multi-billion-dollar diplomacy lobby stirring the pot in Washington and politicians are able to deliver their constituencies a great deal more "pork" in an effort to make armored vehicles and bombs than they can bringing orders for pencils and paper back to their districts.

I share your view on Sisi - his words are terrific and he's a bit of a hero in a landscape devoid of heroes. But his words, if successful, will only have affect on the very margins and not with the likes of those leading and supporting ISIS. Perhaps you're right - perhaps it's a losing battle - but I'm supportive of trying to stop their movement from expanding and solidifying. Had the US not abandoned Afghanistan the first time, after driving out the Soviets, perhaps the Taliban and al Qaeda would not have been able to organize and operate from within that failed state. Do we really want another such state in the middle of this area, so close to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.?
 
Because fighting them there for, give or take, a decade and a half has led to fewer, and less violent/aggressive/expansionist/whatever Extremist Muslims?

Just curious at what point we should sit down and think about this and NOT continue doing the same exact things that have been pretty much 100% ineffective...

The only reason it is ineffective is the cowards on the left who do everything in their power to undermine it.

We should have done what we have done successfully in the past: Pacify and educate. It takes a few decades to take hold, but the goal is to take part in raising a generation that doesn't know the brutal barbarism of their parents time.
 
The only reason it is ineffective is the cowards on the left who do everything in their power to undermine it.

We should have done what we have done successfully in the past: Pacify and educate. It takes a few decades to take hold, but the goal is to take part in raising a generation that doesn't know the brutal barbarism of their parents time.

So basically occupy 4/5ths of the Arab Muslim world for four or five decades and reeducate.

Sounds cost effective and fun.

:roll:
 
The only reason it is ineffective is the cowards on the left who do everything in their power to undermine it.

We should have done what we have done successfully in the past: Pacify and educate. It takes a few decades to take hold, but the goal is to take part in raising a generation that doesn't know the brutal barbarism of their parents time.

How long would it take in Afghanistan?
How long for Iraq?
The culture within the country has to change, thinking that takes a few decades is ludicrous.
 
Back
Top Bottom