# Canada vs ISIL:  War vs fight? (split fm Politics in 2016)



## The Bread Guy (23 Mar 2016)

Interesting messaging/nuancing on the fight against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh by the PM and his foreign minister - highlights mine ...


> *The Liberal government says Canada is not at war with Islamic militants* -- a view not shared by ally France.
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion rejected the "at war" label just one day after the bombings in Brussels that killed more than 30 people and injured 270.
> 
> ...


 op:


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Mar 2016)

Break out the kazoos, we're at Kumbaya.  :

Cry Havoc, and let slip the care bears of... Non confrontational confrontation.


----------



## cavalryman (23 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Break out the kazoos, we're at Kumbaya.  :
> 
> Cry Havoc, and let slip the care bears of... Non confrontational confrontation.


Considering the 70s have called and want their budget back, perhaps we should be thinking Teletubbies >


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Mar 2016)

Ascots all round.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ascots all round.



Powder blue ones of course.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Mar 2016)

Someone is going to be in a real world of hurt when REALITY hits them square in the face.


----------



## GAP (23 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Someone is going to be in a real world of hurt when REALITY hits them square in the face.



Yeah, every Canadian citizen......


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Mar 2016)

I'm not sure what's wrong with saying it isn't a war - it isn't.  War has a technical, legal definition.  We're in a battle - a fight.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what's wrong with saying it isn't a war - it isn't.  War has a technical, legal definition.  We're in a battle - a fight.



Ah!  The Vietnam War.  Who came in first, and who came in second?   :

More seriously; Afghanistan.  Do you think Afghanistan was a battle or a war?


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what's wrong with saying it isn't a war - it isn't.  War has a technical, legal definition.  We're in a battle - a fight.


What's your definition of war? 



Also did I read right?  The budget calls for 8million for counter terrorism and 675million for the cbc?


----------



## cavalryman (23 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What's your definition of war?
> 
> 
> 
> Also did I read right?  The budget calls for 8million for counter terrorism and 675million for the cbc?


Obviously the CBC is the greater threat [


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what's wrong with saying it isn't a war - it isn't.  War has a technical, legal definition.  We're in a battle - a fight.



War is such a strong word... maybe we should call it a "tiff"

You know, like the second world war tiff, the first world war disagreement


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What's your definition of war?



It's not my definition.  My definition is irrelevant.  

The use of violence and force between two or more states to resolve a matter of dispute.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/W/War.aspx


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> War is such a strong word... maybe we should call it a "tiff"



War is not too strong of a word, it's simply the wrong word.


----------



## cavalryman (23 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> War is not too strong of a word, it's simply the wrong word.


A police action like that little fracas on the Korean peninsula circa 1950-54?


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Mar 2016)

What if Harper had asserted we are not in a war, we are in a fight.

Bingo: Trudeau announces Canada joins global war on terror.

Thinking about, and after the cheap shot, war should require a formal declaration under international war. Conflict, on the other hand, is killing people without the formalities. Fight means a sweaty arena and fans cheering for the various players working for the "address groups"* that identify people thumping each other for money.

* Do we still use them?


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Mar 2016)

Yeah... nobody gets hurt in a police action.  Unless it's in Ferguson.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's not my definition.  My definition is irrelevant.
> 
> The use of violence and force between two or more states to resolve a matter of dispute.
> 
> http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/W/War.aspx



So you don't consider ISIL/ISIS a state?


----------



## dapaterson (23 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah!  The Vietnam War.  Who came in first, and who came in second?   :
> 
> More seriously; Afghanistan.  Do you think Afghanistan was a battle or a war?



Did we mobilize the nation's resources?  Did Parliament issue a formal declaration of war?  Did we deploy the army, or did we send less than 10% of the Army at any one time and then send them off for mid-deployment vacations?


And terror is a tactic.  Declaring a war on terror is like declaring a war on left flanking.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So you don't consider ISIL/ISIS a state?



No, I don't acknowledge their claims, nor does the Obama administration.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Did we mobilize the nation's resources?  Did Parliament issue a formal declaration of war?  Did we deploy the army, or did we send less than 10% of the Army at any one time and then send them off for mid-deployment vacations?
> 
> 
> And terror is a tactic.  Declaring a war on terror is like declaring a war on left flanking.



Maybe not, but we sold the tiff a shit load of weapons.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So you don't consider ISIL/ISIS a state?



Based on the Montevideo Conference, perhaps they are.....



> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.


----------



## chanman (24 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> No, I don't acknowledge their claims, nor does the Obama administration.



Would you consider Taiwan a state? Officially recognized or not, ISIL acts like a state. It maintains or at least tries very hard to maintain a monopoly on the use of force inside its borders. It HAS borders. It maintains armed forces, administers territory, operates a judiciary (however brutal), collects taxes, has bureaucratic machinery...

Just because they don't count as a state now, doesn't mean they won't be in future. The old colonial constructs of Syria and Iraq are gone. Barring outright extermination of multiple sides, there remains a large chunk of land inhabited by people with a common identity who aren't probably aren't welcome in and will violently contest incorporation in any of the neighbouring states/rump states/quasi-states


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Mar 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> What if Harper had asserted we are not in a war, we are in a fight.


For the record, at least one Harper Parliamentary Secretary got away with saying the fight in Afghanistan wasn't a war ...


> This is not a war. We are providing a secure environment in a country in which there was a complete loss of security. Let us get it very clear so the NDP can understand what a secure environment is and what a war is.
> 
> A war is between two nations; a war is between two parties. There are not two parties there. This is a different kind of war. We are facing a terrorist organization that does not respect any rules of engagement. As a matter of fact, it has the most hideous way of running a government on record. It will provide no rights to its own citizens. That is why the citizens of Afghanistan want us to bring peace and security. Peace and security can only be provided by NATO forces.



P.S. - Good discussion on the war vs. fight angle, so the thread is now stand alone.


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Mar 2016)

chanman said:
			
		

> Would you consider Taiwan a state?



I think Taiwan has pretty wide international recognition, which, under international law, is generally required for true statehood.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> No, I don't acknowledge their claims, nor does the Obama administration.



PPCLI Guy beat me to it.  Whether you or Obama thinks they're not their own nation there is some pretty good indicators they are.  I'm not really sold on the Obama administration being a gague with this sort of stuff considering the fiasco in Guantanamo bay. You know, how they tortured prisoners and justified it by saying they weren't prisoners of war. Well that started before Obama but really it's the same organization.


Really this boils down to playing with words, like how the Liberals would pull CF18s out of the middle easy in weeks rather than months of being elected (I think I may have even seen "days") and when they were called on it their defense was they didn't technically give a date. Word games.

Merriam-Webster defines war as


> : a state or period of fighting *between countries or groups
> : a situation in which people or groups compete with or fight against each other
> : an organized effort by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad
> 
> *


*

Pretty broad.*


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Mar 2016)

That's why I quoted a legal dictionary.


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Mar 2016)

ISIS is a far more organized entity than many states are. They have laws, taxes, budgets, social welfare, education, health care, executive leadership, a murderous judicial system, but they lack legitimacy because they established all of that by terror and conquer and in some cases by the modern equivalent of _Anschluss_. You name it, it's there, just like Hitler but not quite Hitler. And, they are Global. 

I cannot think of too many countries except for Canada that is musing about having discussions with them. No G-7, G-8, G-20 country acts like our cowardly leader does. Trudeau wants a UN SEC Council seat? Come on....   

We were at war with Germany after the appeasement ended.  Mr. Trudeau and Dion are in appeasement mode, but unlike Chamberlain, these two are much more naive than that.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's why I quoted a legal dictionary.


So we're legally not at war, but common sense and common language would indicate we are.

If the legal definition is conflict between 2 states, then it needs to be updated. We may likely never see a "war" again, but a whole lot of armed conflicts or whatever nom-de-jour we want to use.


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So we're legally not at war, but common sense and common language would indicate we are.



Sure, but there are certain rules and responsibilities that come with war.  The government is nervous to commit to such an onerous term, if I had to guess.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Mar 2016)

I think we would have saved ourselves a lot of legal headache with detainees if they were treated as POWs, because we said it was a war. No complaints about being held without charge, they would be held under hostilities cease, so forever.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Mar 2016)

ISIS whole claim is to start a State, with all the trapping and advertised to people to bring their families, etc. They are similar to a early Israel but without any international support at the government level. It is the state bit that clearly separates ISIS from AQ.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Mar 2016)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ISIS is a far more organized entity than many states are. They have lawsreligious rule, taxes, budgets, social welfare, education, health care, executive leadership, a murderous judicialreligious "courts" system, but they lack legitimacy because they established all of that by terror and conquer and in some cases by the modern equivalent of _Anschluss_. You name it, it's there, just like Hitler but not quite Hitler. And, they are Global.
> 
> I cannot think of too many countries except for Canada that is musing about having discussions with them. No G-7, G-8, G-20 country acts like our cowardly leader does. Trudeau wants a UN SEC Council seat? Come on....
> 
> We were at war with Germany after the appeasement ended.  Mr. Trudeau and Dion are in appeasement mode, but unlike Chamberlain, these two are much more naive than that.



TFTFY.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> ISIS whole claim is to start a State, with all the trapping and advertised to people to bring their families, etc. They are similar to a early Israel but without any international support at the government level. It is the state bit that clearly separates ISIS from AQ.



Quite so. Their aim, contrary to what is said above by W601, is not global but the establishment where they are of an actual Caliphate (or at least their idea of a caliphate) in this world. But like any other "country", they can only succeed when other nations start to recognize them and deal with them as if they were a country or when they fully control what they claim as borders (not yet the case in view of Iraq and Syria's fighting) and live in complete autarky.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Mar 2016)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Trudeau wants a UN SEC Council seat? Come on....


Proper thing.  It's an absolutely useless money-pit and sinecure for the world's most self-righteous bureaucrats; it _needs_  a cheerleader of Canada's status to proclaim how worthy League of Nations 2.0 is.    :

I now return you to the battle  fight  wrangling of the lexicographers.



The problem is, if we didn't have a UN we'd have to invent something like it.  Maybe like the Matrix, it just needs to be razed periodically and we start fresh.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Mar 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> TFTFY.
> 
> Quite so. Their aim, contrary to what is said above by W601, is not global but the establishment where they are of an actual Caliphate (or at least their idea of a caliphate) in this world. But like any other "country", they can only succeed when other nations start to recognize them and deal with them as if they were a country or when they fully control what they claim as borders (not yet the case in view of Iraq and Syria's fighting) and live in complete autarky.



That being said,  however,  I believe their end game desire is world domination, with all humanity submitting to Islam.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Proper thing.  It's an absolutely useless money-pit and sinecure for the world's most self-righteous bureaucrats; it _needs_  a cheerleader of Canada's status to proclaim how worthy League of Nations 2.0 is.    :
> 
> I now return you to the battle  fight  wrangling of the lexicographers.
> 
> ...



Exactly so.  Good hair needs photo opportunities and screaming worshippers.   Trudeau mania 2.0 too.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2016)

For those with access to the Intranet, David Kilcullen gave a presentation where he essentially makes the point ISIS is and should be treated like a radical state (his two examples are Russia prior to 1923 and Iran just after the 1979 Revolution), meaning we can and should use the instruments of State power to defeat them; in other words "war" no matter if we choose to declare it or not.

http://intranet.mil.ca/en/news/articles.page?doc=david-kilcullen-counterinsurgency-and-counterterrorism-in-today-s-operational-context/ilxa79ek&WT.mc_id=ADMPA2016W12eng-feat3


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That being said,  however,  I believe their end game desire is world domination, with all humanity submitting to Islam.



You may be right Jollyjacktar, but not necessarily in the way you think.

My understanding (and please all feel free to correct me if wrong) of the Islamic cult (and I use cult on purpose here) that is ISIL is that they are like the Islamic equivalent of the Christian Rapture cults. ISIL's view is that they currently are (geographically) exactly where they should be as they are the "last one hundred" true Muslim engaged in the final fight that will bring about the rule of Islam through Armageddon/the end of the world. I may have the details wrong, but their point is fundamentally "we are making our final stand here, and when we are all dead in this fight, God will eradicate all infidels from the planet and we will rise again in his splendour as the true muslims we are and live eternally".

Basically: They are not planning to invade the whole world, only to provoke infidels everywhere so we actually do attend their "final battle" to wipe them out.

I guess it's an elaborate and hyper inflationary take on the old "suicide-by-police" gig.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That being said,  however,  I believe their end game desire is world domination, with all humanity submitting to Islam.



that is the end game of every Islamic fundamentalist, as I said before:

Whabbist=  Happy to boil the frog slowly using oil money and demographics so it does not notice till to late.
AQ= Lets kill them in fiendishly devised plots to bring glory to the Islamic world and eventually domination somehow
ISIS= Lets kill them in new and interesting ways because I am bored talking about garbage and sewage


----------



## Staff Weenie (24 Mar 2016)

I'm just pondering the apparent foolishness of officially noting that we are not 'at war' with them, but ISIS certainly believe that they are in essence at war with us....well, actually, they are against everything and everyone outside of their little world.

It must be terribly draining to find enough energy to hate everyone with such vigour.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Mar 2016)

At least they don't have to figure out a position on every little thing, when your goto response is "hate everything".


----------



## cavalryman (24 Mar 2016)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> I'm just pondering the apparent foolishness of officially noting that we are not 'at war' with them, but ISIS certainly believe that they are in essence at war with us....well, actually, they are against everything and everyone outside of their little world.
> 
> It must be terribly draining to find enough energy to hate everyone with such vigour.


It's been theorized that the hate energy comes from suppressed sexual frustration, and we all know how that can be  [:-[


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Mar 2016)

When I said Global, I should have elaborated they have global reach, not global aspirations (at least I don't think they have global aspirations).   But my main point overall, is that they should never be able to take comfort in the fact that a state such as Canada chooses to use the technical and legal definition of "war" as between recognized states, because the comforting implication is that we won't fight anything else.  And since ISIL no longer have to worry about a few Canadian bombs dropping on them, I guess it was just natural that the next steps from our government are those  that do not antagonize them, lest ISIL off shore terrorism activities seep into the public transit systems of Montreal etc. Canadians are not the wimps their own government appears to be.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Mar 2016)

Another difference between AQ and ISIS is their global outreach. AQ from my reading was very much a top down organization, with planning and structure to who, when, where and how they would attack. ISIS is very much into encouragement and blessing of “lone wolves” Basically come live with us and if you can’t, attack the Infidel how and when you can. Social media is far more important to ISIS than AQ.


----------



## ArmyRick (24 Mar 2016)

Some big differences between AQ and ISIS, I think. There was a video going around showing how ISIS was battling and murdering Taliban in A-stan


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Mar 2016)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Some big differences between AQ and ISIS, I think. There was a video going around showing how ISIS was battling and murdering Taliban in A-stan


Not to mention AQ saying ISIS is a touch too extreme for their taste.


----------



## YZT580 (24 Mar 2016)

ISIL has declared war on the nation of Canada. Ignoring this declaration does not make it invalid.  ISIL uses hit-and-run terror to disrupt normal commerce and instill fear in much the same way as we infiltrated saboteurs into France and Germany during WW2.  The terminology being used by Ottawa is that of the playground.  "We will fight them" or "we will stomp them out" are phrases designed to lesson the seriousness.  France has it right.  They have identified the situation correctly. They are at war. The next stage is to identify the enemy and its agents (including those within our borders who seek to radicalize) and then take   whatever action is required to eradicate the threat: including legal action, deportation and military action.  Junior would be well-advised to learn the truth behind his father's famous phrase "watch me".  Pierre had it right.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Did we mobilize the nation's resources?  Did Parliament issue a formal declaration of war?  Did we deploy the army, or did we send less than 10% of the Army at any one time and then send them off for mid-deployment vacations?
> 
> 
> And terror is a tactic.  Declaring a war on terror is like declaring a war on left flanking.




Bingo!

The whole war on terror thing was an ill-considered _strategy_ ... it was first class _public relations_ but, it appeared to me, too many people ~ including high ranking people in e.g. the Pentagon and in the Pearkes Building ~ who should have known better actually believed the PR hype. I could have understood goals like "destroy _al Qaeda_" or "defeat the _Taliban_," but generals who, _again in my opinion_, should have known better seemed to want a broader, more political context and they let the 20_something_ media flacks tell them what their war aims were.  :dunno:


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Mar 2016)

Sort of like the war on drugs


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Mar 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... generals who, _again in my opinion_, should have known better seemed to want a broader, more political context and they let the 20_something_ media flacks political staff tell them what their war aims were.  :dunno:


FTFY


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Mar 2016)

War, fight, skirmish, whatever. Words, mere words. Words that mean different things to different people. No one, absolutely no one, goes and grabs a dictionary every time to ensure that THEIR word meets Oxford's definition. We've spent two pages arguing, discussing, competing about who is right and wrong over the nuances of a word. It doesn't matter what it's called, it isn't going to change the jihadist modus operandi. Nor will it change our reactions to terrorism.

We're sure there are bigger fish to fry, than this conversation about a word. We, strongly, suggest everyone go find something else to discuss and quit wasting bandwidth on this.


---Staff---


----------

